NationStates Jolt Archive

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

He also killed a great deal of people. A few hundred thousand.

Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

Research is your friend.

He also killed a great deal of people. A few hundred thousand.

Those are lies...

he sold oil to countries that are not America.

Those are lies...

The only thing he did was sell oil to countries that are not America.

Prove that claim that those were lies.

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

There is no one in the world this stupid? Who's puppet are you?

Those are lies...

he sold oil to countries that are not America.

Human rights watch doesn't think that those were lies. But we all know Human Rights Watch is a tool of the Neocon PNAC conspiracy, right?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.

You must get very upset that all people die after about 80 years of life, give or take, no?

Just say if you support his death or noe.

It's wrong and inhumane to kill other people no matter how cruel or evil they are.

He's already out of presidency! Why kill him? He has a family!

Stop trolling.

In any case Saddam Hussein was a figure that caused regional instability with his pan-Arabist ideas, and oppression of his own domestic population. The guy is a monster.

I'm against his execution, it will probably lead him being declared a martyr

Too bad Saddam was removed from power. He was the greatest Arab leader in centuries. He was, however, a brutal killer.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed
Stop making such obvious topics, especially when those same topics are on page 1.

I support his death because I can't very well oppose it... he's like 60 something, and maybe has ten years left to live in prison anyway. He'll die whether they execute him or not.

If you strike him down, he shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Who supports it? Who does not?

Death penalty = no-no (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm), hmmkay.

Killing Saddam will just martyr him, we need to lock him up for the rest of his days with occasional breaks outside so we can beat the living crap out of him.

If you are not sure if he should die, ask Kurds in south of Iraq.
Oh yeah you cant, he had them killed.
Ask ones on the north then.

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


how do you plan on evading your death? anyway, to tell you the truth, I don't care what happens to the bastard. not a really good outlook, but don't really care about him.

You must get very upset that all people die after about 80 years of life, give or take, no?

how do you plan on evading your death? anyway, to tell you the truth, I don't care what happens to the bastard. not a really good outlook, but don't really care about him.

Beat you to it NG. :P

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

When are you making a thread that the moon landings were a hoax? You're missing that one.

When are you making a thread that the moon landings were a hoax? You're missing that one.

Don't forget the reptile aliens that control everything.

Has it been 10 hours since the last of these... already!?!

I find it very curious how frivolous we are when it comes to matters of life and death. Millions of people die everyday from sickness, starvation, murder, and accidents; countless of whom do not "deserve" to die, but many who do. It is strange how unwilling we are to carry out judgment for the death of one wicked man, yet we quietly consent to the hundreds of thousands of lives the western powers have ruined without so much as a fleeting consideration of the value of their lives.

If nothing else, Saddam deserves the humble death of a common criminal. Yes, his blood will be on our hands, but there is a certain dignity in taking such a man to his grave. It was all well and good when his murderous, rapist sons were killed without trial or due process, but by the cruelly indiscriminate horrors of war. The tyrant father was spared that, though he hardly deserved it, and he should consent to join his sons.

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

So I guess you got beef with god then? Or at least chicken.:D

i do not suport it. in my opinion, no crime warrants death.

Though I'm against the death penalty, I don't find myself particuliarly greived about his impending execution. Just can't work up any tears.

There is no one in the world this stupid? Who's puppet are you?

Seconded. This is getting ridiculous.

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed


Your not that smart are you?

He also killed a great deal of people. A few hundred thousand.

As did numerous other people, including Bush.

If you strike him down, he shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.


In touch with the force, he is not.



:D

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

Oh!! I thought from the title that he was executed.

I myself think that Saddam can be helped and rehabilitated to be no longer a threat to society without his death, and this mostly evident by how he considers Saladin to be his greatest hero. I do believe myself that no rational man is beyond rehabilitation. I don't have much of an opinion about irrational men because some irrationalities do make a person beyond help.

Just say if you support his death or noe.

It's wrong and inhumane to kill other people no matter how cruel or evil they are.

He's already out of presidency! Why kill him? He has a family!

No, he doesn't. His sons died in a firefight, and his wife and daughters are hiding somewhere in Syria, last I checked.

Anyways, saying "all death is wrong" is ridiculous. Hussein was a brutal killer and dangerous dictator; he definetly didn't have WMD's, but he didn't deserve to rule a nation regardless. He definetly deserves the hangman's noose.

That point aside, I don't think this is exactly a good time to kill him. It's likely Hussein will become a martyr for the cause, and his death may only serve to bolster more violence.

In touch with the force, he is not.



:D

I knew at least one person would get that. :p

Just say if you support his death or noe.

It's wrong and inhumane to kill other people no matter how cruel or evil they are.

He's already out of presidency! Why kill him? He has a family!

There is no way you can unintentionally misspell 'no'.

Somebody ban him.

There is no way you can unintentionally misspell 'no'.


QFT...And, the funniest damn thing here in a while.


Can I second the ban?

There is no way you can unintentionally misspell 'no'.

Somebody ban him.

BTW I think he meant "not" not "no".

BTW I think he meant "not" not "no".

How ironic my mistake is.

BTW I think he meant "not" not "no".



Alright...fine,dammit. I'll rescind my second.

He's already out of presidency! Why kill him? He has a family!Oh yes, what a breed... :rolleyes:

Wasn't this the man who invaded kuwait in 1991 and executed more than 3,000 shiite muslims?

There is no one in the world this stupid? Who's puppet are you?

Not mine. *nods*

There is no way you can unintentionally misspell 'no'.

Somebody ban him.


Ban him for misspelling no? How uttlerly strict.

Ban him for misspelling no? How uttlerly strict.

Actually his misspelt 'not'. But that is a side-note. He is obviously a troll.

Working on the principle "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Yes I am completely against his execution.

Working on the principle "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Yes I am completely against his execution.

elaborate, because saddam was our enemy, so the enemy of that enemy would be the northern alliance.

Actually his misspelt 'not'. But that is a side-note. He is obviously a troll.

well, the 't' and and the 'e' are not too far away on the keyboard...

elaborate, because saddam was our enemy, so the enemy of that enemy would be the northern alliance.

I'm referring to George W Bush as my enemy.

Actually his misspelt 'not'. But that is a side-note. He is obviously a troll.A mountain troll or a cave troll? Or a troll turned to stone?
http://www.tuckborough.net/images/stone-troll.jpg

I'm referring to George W Bush as my enemy.?? But aren't Dubya and Saddam best friends?

well, the 't' and and the 'e' are not too far away on the keyboard...

There is an entire letter between them; I could let it slide if it was and r or a y. I don't see how or why he wouldn't quickly glance at what he has written, even if in passing to press the reply button, and notice the mistake.

It really doesnt matter whether we kill him or not, it wont make Iraq magically become stable. Killing him is a mere example of victors justice used as a mere propaganda tool. Was he horrible? Yes. Was Iraq stable under him? Yes.

A mountain troll or a cave troll? Or a troll turned to stone?
http://www.tuckborough.net/images/stone-troll.jpg

?? But aren't Dubya and Saddam best friends?

Best friends don't invade each others countries. rofl :p

A mountain troll or a cave troll? Or a troll turned to stone?
http://www.tuckborough.net/images/stone-troll.jpg

http://www.howardlyon.com/images/paintings/page%203/Cave%20Troll%20Final%20Small.jpg

(image)I only like Tolkienean trolls...

It really doesnt matter whether we kill him or not, it wont make Iraq magically become stable. Killing him is a mere example of victors justice used as a mere propaganda tool. Was he horrible? Yes. Was Iraq stable under him? Yes.

Germany was also more stable under Hitler than it was pre-Hitler.

How many people Julius Cesar killed with a nice lie?
(Gauls, Britons etc...)
How many... Napoleon...
(Russian, French etc...)
How... de Gaulle
H... Churchill
etc ...

Hurra the Saddam, lucky one, is alive and comdemned...

I think his only perversity is to be alive.


PS: By the way his best friends were not always Europeans but Usians for a good lot of arms and ammunitions...

How many people Julius Cesar killed with a nice lie?
(Gauls, Britons etc...)
How many... Napoleon...
(Russian, French etc...)
How... de Gaulle
H... Churchill
etc ...

Hurra the Saddam, lucky one, is alive and comdemned...

I think his only perversity is to be alive.


PS: By the way his best friends were not always Europeans but [Americans] for a good lot of arms and ammunitions...

so you would agree with me when i say america supplied iraq with chemical/biological-type weapons?

so you would agree with me when i say america supplied iraq with chemical/biological-type weapons?Since this is a fact that's also pretty well known, it doesn't really matter whether or not Jesuites agrees or not.

Since this is a fact that's also pretty well known, it doesn't really matter whether or not Jesuites agrees or not.

so how, exactly, does iraq manage to rid itself of ALL of these weapons, if not when in conflict with iran?

so how, exactly, does iraq manage to rid itself of ALL of these weapons, if not when in conflict with iran??? Yes, Iraq used those weapons in the conflict with Iran and in massacres of Kurds. What is your question?

?? Yes, Iraq used those weapons in the conflict with Iran. What is your question?

if they didnt use all of the weapons in the conflict, where would they have gone? into stockpiles, to answer that. question is, whered those stockpiled "WMDs" go years later after iraq put em to bed?

Thoughts about whether Saddam Hussein might live or die fall under the same mental priority as thoughts about whether my toenails need clipping.

:p

Yeah not too fussed either. I got kinda bored of hearing about Iraq after maybe a month.

I'm against the death penalty, but if there's anyone who deserves to die, it's him.

However, I'm not some idiot under the illusion that his death will really change anything.

1° Saddam's a bloody bastard.
2° The death penalty is barbaric.
3° 2° overrules 1° being more general.

"His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."

Was never judged, he died a sinner.
Happy Saddam he will not die a sinner since Terrans and other Usians said they are the true voice of Justice, the voice of the Lord against the Evil.

Amen.

Please, for the inheritance party, follow the yellow line.

"His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."

Was never judged, he died a sinner.
Happy Saddam he will not die a sinner since Terrans and other Usians said they are the true voice of Justice, the voice of the Lord against the Evil.

Amen.

Please, for the inheritance party, follow the yellow line.

*Blinks*

*is quite shocked*

Did... Did I just read what I think I did? :confused:

I don't know.

Condemnation does liberate the judge, it oppresses the condemned man,
or
condemnation does liberate the accused, it oppresses the judge.

I don't care about Jung and will stay with the second version.

Prove that claim that those were lies.

Now, now, we all now that it's near impossible to prove a negative. How about you provide evidence of your claims?

Saddam's execution might put a damper on the ambitions of the Sunni millitias or it might spur them on to even greater violence. Double or quits?

He also killed a great deal of people. A few hundred thousand.

Is that just the number of confirmed deaths? Because last I heard, estimates were in the 2,000,000+ range.

I say we gut the freak and parade his head around Iraq, burning slowly! He deserves to die! He's almost as worse as Hitler! Kill Saddam!:mp5:

Who supports it? Who does not?

I don't suppot it because all death is wrong no matter how bad the person is.


Anyway, the only thing that Saddam did was make an oil field that sells oil to Europe, and not to the US, so Bush blamed all sorts of crap on him and now he's going to get killed

If Saddam could create oil fields you can bet he would not be executed.

Saddam is responsible for the deaths of 1 million ppl appx from the Iran/Iraq war
and appx 300,000 more over the course of his time in power.

Killing him will not bring one person back to life nor ensure future safety to them. GW is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
himself and I wouldn't support the death penalty for him either.

Murder is always wrong.

I say we gut the freak and parade his head around Iraq, burning slowly! He deserves to die! He's almost as worse as Hitler! Kill Saddam!:mp5:

Dude.Caaaaaalm down.That's bringing you down to his level.
Personally,I think killing him would make a martyr and he would suffer much more with life in prison.

If Saddam could create oil fields you can bet he would not be executed.

Saddam is responsible for the deaths of 1 million ppl appx from the Iran/Iraq war
and appx 300,000 more over the course of his time in power.

Killing him will not bring one person back to life nor ensure future safety to them. GW is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
himself and I wouldn't support the death penalty for him either.

Murder is always wrong.But death penalty is not murder.

Stretch his neck. Do it soon. Do it on camera. Send the video to Al Jazeera.

I will enjoy hearing the news when they pull the lever. I'll enjoy it even more if it's televised. Most of all, I'll enjoy reading the agonized, anguished howls and self-righteous, holier-than-thou moral posturing of certain posters, on this board and elsewhere.

Burn, baby, burn.

But death penalty is not murder.

but it is intentionally taking a human life.

But death penalty is not murder.

Technically,yes.But the same thing happens.Someone dies.Hence,it should not happen.
And,newsflash,ITV has just reported Saddam's execution may happen in a matter of hours.MAY happen,I wouldn't take their word for it,but they're all saying he's got hours left.Also,they're reporting that America is still in control of his execution.

Stretch his neck. Do it soon. Do it on camera. Send the video to Al Jazeera.


As rather sick as your intentions are,they ARE filming it.(To prevent conspiracy theories.)
Well,that's one thread The Plastic Ear can't start up.

Stretch his neck. Do it soon. Do it on camera. Send the video to Al Jazeera.

I will enjoy hearing the news when they pull the lever. I'll enjoy it even more if it's televised. Most of all, I'll enjoy reading the agonized, anguished howls and self-righteous, holier-than-thou moral posturing of certain posters, on this board and elsewhere.

Burn, baby, burn.

Hard?

Hard?

:eek:

Hard?

I went out of my house and literally danced in the street when I first heard the news of Arafat's demise. Barring divine interention, I will do so again when Saddam drops and swings :D

So that's a yes? Ewww.

Like the rest of the left, I have no time for Saddam and didnt back when the US were arming him and the right were his fans. Im consistant, unlike some posters here.

Executing him now, and it will happen tonight, will be another major strategic mistake and give him martyerdom.

The 'trial' was a farce, supressing an uprising was not a criminal in Iraq at the time. He should have gone to the Hague where his crimes could have been impartially put on the record and his regieme tried. But for isolationist reasons the yanks decided a kangaroo court on a comparatively minor charge was laid on.

The 'trial' was a farce, supressing an uprising was not a criminal in Iraq at the time. He should have gone to the Hague where his crimes could have been impartially put on the record and his regieme tried. But for isolationist reasons the yanks decided a kangaroo court on a comparatively minor charge was laid on.

The whole point of having the trial in Iraq and having him put on trial by Iraqis was to send the message that the new government in Iraq was stable enough to depose of it's maniacal ex-dictator. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but it has sent a message regardless.

The whole point of having the trial in Iraq and having him put on trial by Iraqis was to send the message that the new government in Iraq was stable enough to depose of it's maniacal ex-dictator. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but it has sent a message regardless.

No, it sent the message that a US puppet court on a US timetable found him guilty regardless. Even the timing of his execution came from Washington.

The Hague was the place for him without giving a new Iraqi government a divisive first test like this.

Just say if you support his death or noe.

It's wrong and inhumane to kill other people no matter how cruel or evil they are.

He's already out of presidency! Why kill him? He has a family!

Yep, Israel shouldn't have executed Eichmann:rolleyes: He had a family afterall.

The execution of Saddam Hussein will be a martyrdom that will get every Sunni insurgent pissed and ballistic. Like punting a hornet's nest. As if there weren't enough troop casualities and sectarian murders as it is currently.

Yep, Israel shouldn't have executed Eichmann:rolleyes: He had a family afterall.

Even Eichmann, after all the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust, I do not believe should have been executed.

Even Eichmann, after all the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust, I do not believe should have been executed.

But Eichmann's execution didn't inflame a Nazi insurgency either.

So that's a yes? Ewww.

I don't think he meant he has an erection...

http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/saddamhanging.gif

I don't think he meant he has an erection...

I dunno, he seemed awfully.... excited.

I don't think he meant he has an erection...

Good.*wipes brow*

Yep, Israel shouldn't have executed Eichmann:rolleyes: He had a family afterall.At least Israel shouldn't have abducted Eichmann, but should have filed an extradition request and then put him before an international court. It's a pretty bad sign if an allegedly free and democratic state should use Gestapo methods to put a prominent Nazi to trial.

Even Eichmann, after all the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust, I do not believe should have been executed.Oh yes, he should.

At least Israel shouldn't have abducted Eichmann, but should have filed an extradition request and then put him before an international court. It's a pretty bad sign if an allegedly free and democratic state should use Gestapo methods to put a prominent Nazi to trial.

Oh yes, he should.

You talk as though all nations would obey an international court's extradition request. Or even admit that Eichmann was in their country.

Here's a clue - the fleeing Nazis had a lot of friends in South American governments. Your international court and extradition request would have been used to wipe Eichmann's ass.

Saddam was truly the Hitler of Iraq, truly when you look at the similarties between the Thrid Reich and Saddam Hussein, there pretty amazing. He deserves to hang. Who really cares if he's considered a martyer Sad but true people will call him a martyer, but there are thoes that consider Hitler one too. At least someone is finally doing it, I mean the last 5 years the U.N. has only barely set up a Tribunal for Rwanda, and Kosovo. I'm supprised it happend this fast

Hang him High

Face it guys, you just wanna see Saddam ejaculate. As often happens when one is hanged.

Face it guys, you just wanna see Saddam ejaculate. As often happens when one is hanged.

Damn!Nabbed again.

Damn!Nabbed again.

I knew it! I knew it! :D

Face it guys, you just wanna see Saddam ejaculate. As often happens when one is hanged.??

I knew it! I knew it! :D

Hey come on!I have a thing for teh ebil fascist dictators spurting their lurve juice.

Saddam Hussein's execution will take place before 6:00 a.m. Saturday local time (10:00 p.m. Friday ET), Munir Haddad, a judge on the appeals court that upheld the former dictator's death sentence, told CNN.

but it is intentionally taking a human life.

So? Intentionally taking a human life does not always constitute murder.

But the same thing happens.Someone dies.

Uhh... again, so? There are circumstances where people need to die.

Also, spaces after periods, friend.

Like the rest of the left, I have no time for Saddam and didnt back when the US were arming him and the right were his fans. Im consistant, unlike some posters here.

The US armed him when he was a nominal regional ally. You lefties keep trotting this thing out as if it actually proves something. You object to the fact that we once armed him, and now you object to the fact that we made an effort to disarm him. Yeesh.

But for isolationist reasons the yanks decided a kangaroo court on a comparatively minor charge was laid on.

I love the stupid logic that leads lefties to believe invading another country and putting their leader on trial for crimes that had nothing to do with them is isolationist.

But Eichmann's execution didn't inflame a Nazi insurgency either.

Germans have a greater history of political stability than Muslims.

Face it guys, you just wanna see Saddam ejaculate. As often happens when one is hanged.

People don't ejaculate when hanged. :confused:

Stretch his neck. Do it soon. Do it on camera. Send the video to Al Jazeera.

I will enjoy hearing the news when they pull the lever. I'll enjoy it even more if it's televised. Most of all, I'll enjoy reading the agonized, anguished howls and self-righteous, holier-than-thou moral posturing of certain posters, on this board and elsewhere.

Burn, baby, burn.

Ugh, I can almost hear you fapping.

but it is intentionally taking a human life.the reason is different and the purpose is different.

So? Intentionally taking a human life does not always constitute murder.


Unless its self defence it does.


Uhh... again, so? There are circumstances where people need to die.


When they have a terminal illness or where they are sacrificing themselves
for the greater good, by their own choice.



The US armed him when he was a nominal regional ally. You lefties keep trotting this thing out as if it actually proves something. You object to the fact that we once armed him, and now you object to the fact that we made an effort to disarm him. Yeesh.


As Bill Hicks pointed out the US in this is like Jack Palance in Shane
pick up the gun

bang

you all saw it, he had a gun.

The US armed him, assisted him in committing crimes and then
uses his arms and the crimes he committed often with their help
as justification for invading that oil rich country.


I love the stupid logic that leads lefties to believe invading another country and putting their leader on trial for crimes that had nothing to do with them is isolationist.

I think we already know you love stupid logic.

Perhaps the poster was suggesting that ignoring and bypassing the appropriate international
bodies is a variation of isolationism, although I would never express it that way myself.
I would express it as International Terrorism by a Rogue State.

the reason is different and the purpose is different.


Exactly how?

Exactly how?go figure

go figure

To lazy to do any figuring yourself is it?

Many if not most murders are committed by people who believe themselves wronged, most times wrongly but sometimes rightly.
Many if not most murders are committed with the intention of killing the person.
In fact I am pretty sure that the intention to kill is part of what makes it murder.

In all these pages a number of people have tried using one book or another
to justify state sanctioned murder.
Whether the law or the bible.

However just having some text allowing something to happen does
not make those actions right.

Try something we probably are in agreement on.
Adults who have sex with prepubescent children are doing wrong.
The laws of the land proscribe it
but even if they did not, even if the law specifically allowed it, it would still be wrong
and good people would oppose it with every fibre of their being.

The US armed him when he was a nominal regional ally. You lefties keep trotting this thing out as if it actually proves something. You object to the fact that we once armed him, and now you object to the fact that we made an effort to disarm him. Yeesh.

No, I object to the US's flexible use of tinpot dictators when you think it suits you, I object the US's arming, funding and training groups like al-queda. I genreally object to the fact that you actively assisted this mans murderous regieme and then topple him and demand thanks for removing YOUR tyrant.



I love the stupid logic that leads lefties to believe invading another country and putting their leader on trial for crimes that had nothing to do with them is isolationist.

you engaged in an illegal war, tried to fatally undermine the UN and to a lesser extent NATO because they wouldnt follow through, went in against the express wishes of most of the international community and the majority of popular opinion in all your allies states, captured the President of Iraq and placed him on trial on trumped up charges in a loaded court and pulled strings all the way. thats isolationism, telling the world to fuck off while you fuck it up.

I despise Saddam and what he did. But I will not accept a lecture in morality from the self same people who put him there and waited till 20 years after the brutality was over to act. the judgement of people like this is clearly not to be trusted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDABe8AOuCQ)

Saddam was truly the Hitler of Iraq, truly when you look at the similarties between the Thrid Reich and Saddam Hussein, there pretty amazing. He deserves to hang.

G-G-G-odwin

Name one?

The haste to waste him determines that he will now never be tried for his most heinous crimes. Genocide against the Kurds.

I can't possibly agree with a death sentence. I'm opposed to all forms of democide.

I'm thrilled. There should be a pay-per-view of the hanging. I'd order it and have drinks with my pals watching it.

Wish we could kill the bastard twice.

I'm thrilled. There should be a pay-per-view of the hanging. I'd order it and have drinks with my pals watching it.

Wish we could kill the bastard twice.

Burn in hell.

I'm thrilled. There should be a pay-per-view of the hanging. I'd order it and have drinks with my pals watching it.

Wish we could kill the bastard twice.

you are why people fly planes into buildings

At least Israel shouldn't have abducted Eichmann, but should have filed an extradition request and then put him before an international court. It's a pretty bad sign if an allegedly free and democratic state should use Gestapo methods to put a prominent Nazi to trial.



Once again you know jack shit about anything that involves either Judaism or Israel.

Eichmann was being sheltered by fascist supporters of Peron in the military.

The fucker deserved the public execution he got.

Once again you know jack shit about anything that involves either Judaism or Israel.

I take it you mean to say then, that it's not "a pretty bad sign if an allegedly free and democratic state should use Gestapo methods". Is it a good sign though, IDF?

I can't say I'm too sorry to see him go.

Once again you know jack shit about anything that involves either Judaism or Israel.

Eichmann was being sheltered by fascist supporters of Peron in the military.

The fucker deserved the public execution he got.Certainly. Nevertheless Israel acted just like the Nazi state. But of course on the other hand, Israel has never been otherwise from the get-go. Racism and conquest and Gestapo methods to hunt down their former nemesis.

Certainly. Nevertheless Israel acted just like the Nazi state. But of course on the other hand, Israel has never been otherwise from the get-go. Racism and conquest.

You know jack shit about the Middle East and are nothing more than a racist anti-semitic terrorist sympathizer. You try to make excuses to justify the bombing of nightclubs and hope Jews are the victims when it occurs.

No wonder you don't support Israel's capture of Eichmann.

You know jack shit about the Middle East and are nothing more than a racist anti-semitic terrorist sympathizer. You try to make excuses to justify the bombing of nightclubs and hope Jews are the victims when it occurs.

No wonder you don't support Israel's capture of Eichmann.I'm not the one who bears the name of one of the world's most ruthless and cruel military organizations as a nick. You like to see Arabs killed, so you are in fact the anti-Semite.

Well, he's dead now and justice has been served. One Iraq-related problem down; one million more to go.

You know jack shit about the Middle East and are nothing more than a racist anti-semitic terrorist sympathizer. You try to make excuses to justify the bombing of nightclubs and hope Jews are the victims when it occurs.

No wonder you don't support Israel's capture of Eichmann.

Shut up with your blathering, rambling, vulgar personal attacks, IDF.

Get a grip

You like to see Arabs killed, so you are in fact the anti-Semite.

Not that tired misrepresentation again :rolleyes:

"Anti-Semitism" refers specifically and uniquely to hatred of Jews. Not Arabs. Not Egyptians. Not ancient Babylonians. Not when the term was first coined. Not today. It's hatred of JEWS and ONLY JEWS.

End of discussion.

_____

JC #24

Not that tired misrepresentation again :rolleyes:

"Anti-Semitism" refers specifically and uniquely to hatred of Jews. Not Arabs. Not Egyptians. Not ancient Babylonians. Not when the term was first coined. Not today. It's hatred of JEWS and ONLY JEWS.

End of discussion.That's only the politically correct use today (which unfortunately is pretty racist, since most Semites are not Jews).

I'm not the one who bears the name of one of the world's most ruthless and cruel military organizations as a nick. You like to see Arabs killed, so you are in fact the anti-Semite.

I don't like to see Arabs killed. If a deal were offered to go give the Palestinians Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for peace, I'd go for it in a second. The reality is that it won't happen as the PLO and Hamas don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

Israel is being fired upon almost daily and as a democracy, Israel's government is liable for the protection of its population. That is the basic role of a government.

Not that tired misrepresentation again :rolleyes:

"Anti-Semitism" refers specifically and uniquely to hatred of Jews. Not Arabs. Not Egyptians. Not ancient Babylonians. Not when the term was first coined. Not today. It's hatred of JEWS and ONLY JEWS.

End of discussion.

_____

JC #24quoted for truth

That's only the politically correct use today (which unfortunately is pretty racist, since most Semites are not Jews).

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your liking. Just check any dictionary. I know Websters and Dictionary.com will back up the given definition.

Well, he's dead now and justice has been served. One Iraq-related problem down; one million more to go.

Justice was not served, as I observed earlier. A thirst for vengeance has been slaked, perhaps.

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your liking. Just check any dictionary. I know Websters and Dictionary.com will back up the given definition.

Sem·ite /ˈsɛmaɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

Sem·ite /ˈsɛmaɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

Nice dodge, now give me the definition of anti-semite.

You will find the definition is very different.

You lose, now go try again

Justice was not served, as I observed earlier. A thirst for vengeance has been slaked, perhaps.

The most basic underlying point of justice is revenge--to get back at those that have wronged others.

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your liking. Just check any dictionary. I know Websters and Dictionary.com will back up the given definition.And? You are an anti-Semite in the literal meaning of the word. An anti Semite. We all know that the use of anti-Semite as equivalent tom anti-Jew is in fact the expression of a political agenda, that implies that Semites were Jews and Jews were Semites, which in both cases only applies to a minority of instances. We all know who Semites really are today: mainly the Arabs. And prefixing the word with anti- means to be against them, not the weird European Jews who have become rather Japhites than anything.

The most basic underlying point of justice is revenge--to get back at those that have wronged others.

No, it isn't. What underlies Justice is Equity.

Revenge is the most basic underlying point of Mob Rule.

And? You are an anti-Semite in the literal meaning of the word. An anti Semite. We all know that the use of anti-Semite as equivalent tom anti-Jew is in fact the expression of a political agenda, that implies that Semites were Jews and Jews were Semites, which in both cases only applies to a minority of instances.

Go on dictionary.com and look up anti-semite. It doesn't take someone with a Forrest Gump IQ to do that. There is a definition for anti-semite, and it only applies to hatred of Jews.

That's only the politically correct use today (which unfortunately is pretty racist, since most Semites are not Jews).

Boo-hoo! That phrase with time became soley the Jews' because over the years people hated the Jews. Not Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Arabs, but Jews. And you are crying over it because it's racist.

Nice dodge, now give me the definition of anti-semite.

You will find the definition is very different.

You lose, now go try again

A Semite is as defined. Therefore it is logical that an "anti" Semitic quality would be one that is against Semites as defined. It may not have been "coined" that way, but gosh, I bet the term "Negro" was not 'coined' to be racially offensive.

Another way to look at it. I say that "America" means the United States of America. Aha! But now I coin a phrase, "Anti-American," and that doesn't mean against the whole USA, but only California.

Your preferred definition of "Anti-Semite" is analogous to my new definition of "Anti-American." Both imply a needlessly narrowed definition of the operative word. Such that many people today seem completely unaware that "Semite" means anything other than "Jew." Perhaps that was the goal, eh?

And? You are an anti-Semite in the literal meaning of the word. An anti Semite. We all know that the use of anti-Semite as equivalent tom anti-Jew is in fact the expression of a political agenda, that implies that Semites were Jews and Jews were Semites, which in both cases only applies to a minority of instances. We all know who Semites really are today: mainly the Arabs. And prefixing the word with anti- means to be against them, not the weird European Jews who have become rather Japhites than anything.

I bet you think it was a Zionist propaganda the Jews planned to make the term 'Semite' their own :rolleyes:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semite

This page has 3 definitions and all of them state it is against Jews and Jews alone. It appears UB and others need to learn how to read.

No, it isn't. What underlies Justice is Equity.

Revenge is the most basic underlying point of Mob Rule.

I disagree. Revenge is one of the central foundations of seeking justice against another guilty of having violated commonly agreed upon rules in a civilized society. All are answerable to the law and all rules come with consequences for breaking them. When one harms you or those associated to you, revenge is a natural reaction. Revenge is an underyling part of justice.

And? You are an anti-Semite in the literal meaning of the word. An anti Semite. We all know that the use of anti-Semite as equivalent tom anti-Jew is in fact the expression of a political agenda, that implies that Semites were Jews and Jews were Semites, which in both cases only applies to a minority of instances. We all know who Semites really are today: mainly the Arabs. And prefixing the word with anti- means to be against them, not the weird European Jews who have become rather Japhites than anything.

While Semite does refer to all those groups you mentioned, the anti-semite term specifically refers to Jews. Though this narrowing of definition might have been politically motivated (personally, I find it more likely to have been socially defined), it still does not change the fact that today, according to the dictionary, anti-semite only refers to those against Jews.

Just come up with a different word to avoid confusion. Precision in word choice is always better then large vague definitions that include things people do not normally associate with the word.

A Semite is as defined. Therefore it is logical that an "anti" Semitic quality would be one that is against Semites as defined. It may not have been "coined" that way, but gosh, I bet the term "Negro" was not 'coined' to be racially offensive.

Another way to look at it. I say that "America" means the United States of America. Aha! But now I coin a phrase, "Anti-American," and that doesn't mean against the whole USA, but only California.

Your preferred definition of "Anti-Semite" is analogous to my new definition of "Anti-American." Both imply a needlessly narrowed definition of the operative word. Such that many people today seem completely unaware that "Semite" means anything other than "Jew." Perhaps that was the goal, eh?

First of all, you proved her point. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that the Jews intended to 'coin' the phrase so not alot of people will know that Semites are not only Jews?

Boo-hoo! That phrase with time became soley the Jews' because over the years people hated the Jews. Not Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Arabs, but Jews. And you are crying over it because it's racist.Europeans hated all folks from the Middle East, and although - unlike Arabs or Phoenicians - Jews had already turned their backs on the Middle East a very long time ago, they still were perceived the most numerous folks from the Middle East. That may be due to the fact that they didn't integrate because of their different beliefs, and thus were regarded weirdos. However, the vast majority of Semites are not Jews, thus the word is misleading and in fact a willful misrepresentation.

First of all, you proved her point.

I like when I'm told this. Apparently I prove other people's points when I prove my own. It's a good thing someone is proving things, anyway, but I feel oddly like I've just masturbated...

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that the Jews intended to 'coin' the phrase so not alot of people will know that Semites are not only Jews?

Well, lookin at some stuff about the origin of the word.

The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was practically synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its usage by Renan and others.

I am not suggesting an E3IL J00 CONSP1RACY. But it's continued use? The sociopolitical usefulness? For example, how IDF and other pro-Israel forumers constantly decry anyone who opposes Israel's policies as being a terrorist, Jew-hating nazi. It's pretty damn convenient. And like I said, there are a lot of people who to this day, synonymize "semite" with "Jew."

While Semite does refer to all those groups you mentioned, the anti-semite term specifically refers to Jews. Though this narrowing of definition might have been politically motivated (personally, I find it more likely to have been socially defined), it still does not change the fact that today, according to the dictionary, anti-semite only refers to those against Jews.

Just come up with a different word to avoid confusion. Precision in word choice is always better then large vague definitions that include things people do not normally associate with the word.A different word? No problem: IDF is the worst example of an anti-Arabist or maybe anti-native-Middle-Easterners-ist.

Europeans hated all folks from the Middle East, and although - unlike Arabs or Phoenicians - Jews had already turned their backs on the Middle East a very long time ago, they still were perceived the most numerous folks from the Middle East. That may be due to the fact that they didn't integrate because of their different beliefs, and thus were regarded weirdos.

The Jews never turned their back on the Middle East. You once again are showing yourself to be a very ignorant individual on this topic. The Jews were kicked out and scattered by the Romans in what was known as the Diaspara.

Very few Jews were left alive in Israel. Those who refused to go into slavery were slaughtered. Only some of the Jews in Tzippori and a few other cities survived. Some Jews who had cooperated with the Romans even were allowed to live in Tzfat, Jerusalem, and Tiberias. Many of those Jews were then massacred by the Crusaders.

A different word? No problem: IDF is the worst example of an anti-Arabist or maybe anti-native-Middle-Easterners-ist.

How so? I have said I have no problem with a Palestinian State? It just won't happen because the PLO and Hamas are unwilling to recognize Israel or the Jew's right to exist.

"Anti-Semitism" refers specifically and uniquely to hatred of Jews. Not Arabs. Not Egyptians. Not ancient Babylonians. Not when the term was first coined. Not today. It's hatred of JEWS and ONLY JEWS.

End of discussion. so .. who started to use the term Anti-semite.. as being exclusive for Jews.. and excluded other Semites..??

Hollywood did.

Hollywood may be the ultimate authority for you.. but not for me.

Not today.. not tomorrow.. not gonna happen.

so who used the term Anti-semite as being exclusive for Jews.. and excluded other Semites..

Hollywood did.

Hollywood may be the ultimate authority for you.. but not for me.

Not today.. not tomorrow.. not gonna happen.

Yes everything is a Jewish conspiracy with you. Those evil Hollywood Jews invented the Holocaust and ABC is Jewish owned and made that 9/11 movie to support the Zionists. (Those are actual OD claims)

I am not suggesting an E3IL J00 CONSP1RACY. But it's continued use? The sociopolitical usefulness? For example, how IDF and other pro-Israel forumers constantly decry anyone who opposes Israel's policies as being a terrorist, Jew-hating nazi. It's pretty damn convenient. And like I said, there are a lot of people who to this day, synonymize "semite" with "Jew."

Well it sure as hell sounded like you implied a Jewish conspiracy. And if the term is widely used by Jews, that's because they need this word to describe a phenomenon that still exists in the world. If another word described the same thing, they would use it instead.

I like when I'm told this. Apparently I prove other people's points when I prove my own. It's a good thing someone is proving things, anyway, but I feel oddly like I've just masturbated...



Well, lookin at some stuff about the origin of the word.



I am not suggesting an E3IL J00 CONSP1RACY. But it's continued use? The sociopolitical usefulness? For example, how IDF and other pro-Israel forumers constantly decry anyone who opposes Israel's policies as being a terrorist, Jew-hating nazi. It's pretty damn convenient. And like I said, there are a lot of people who to this day, synonymize "semite" with "Jew."


Anti-semite means "anti-jewish" in English. End of story.

Meaning is set by *usage,* and anti-semite is *used* to signify "anti-jewish."

To the degree that 'semite' is thought to mean 'exclusively jewish,' the cause is a back-formation from 'anti-semitic,' which is English for "anti-jewish."

You have things backwards in thinking that the strict, formal meaning of 'semitic' has primacy in determining what the english word "antisemitic" means.

The fact that 'semitic' refers, in other contexts, to things other than judaism is completely irrelevant to how "anti-semitic" is used and what it means. Who cares if there is a semitic language and racial group? The english meaning of "anti-semitic" is confined to judaism.

"negro" is a foreign word for "black," and in some cases is used with genuine affection. What of it? In english, it and its deritivates have specific, negative meaning in certain contexts.

Don't let the likes of IDF get one over on you on account of a dictionary, get a grip.

And if the term is widely used by Jews, that's because they need this word to describe a phenomenon that still exists in the world. If another word described the same thing, they would use it instead.

It's not just Jews who use it.

Oh and this term works. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism)

Anti-Judaic, Anti-Jewish. That's the neat thing about the prefix "anti."

Meaning is set by *usage,* and anti-semite is *used* to signify "anti-jewish."


Oh in that case, anti-semite is *used* to signify "anti-Israel."


Who cares if there is a semitic language and racial group?

If I were a non-Jewish semite, I sure as fuck would. But hey, maybe non-Jewish semites don't matter!

get a grip.

Eat my shorts.

It's not just Jews who use it.

Oh and this term works. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism)

Anti-Judaic, Anti-Jewish. That's the neat thing about the prefix "anti."

Oh I know that, but the guy I was responding to said something about the pro-Israelis here usage of that term.

A different word? No problem: IDF is the worst example of an anti-Arabist or maybe anti-native-Middle-Easterners-ist.

::grin:: It has a nice ring to it, the first particularly.

If I were a non-Jewish semite, I sure as fuck would. But hey, maybe non-Jewish semites don't matter!


:rolleyes: Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish. Get over it.

Yes everything is a Jewish conspiracy with you. Those evil Hollywood Jews invented the Holocaust and ABC is Jewish owned and made that 9/11 movie to support the Zionists. (Those are actual OD claims) pathetic Lies.

prove I ever said
"Jewish conspiracy"
or
"Jews invented the Holocaust.."
or
"jews made 9-11"
or
"..jews made that 9-11 movie to support... whoever"

prove any of those with the quote fuction if you can...
oh wait.. you cant.. because I never said that.

Oh in that case, anti-semite is *used* to signify "anti-Israel."



If I were a non-Jewish semite, I sure as fuck would. But hey, maybe non-Jewish semites don't matter!



Eat my shorts.

Yeah, maybe they dont matter...
and maybe...
you dont know anything about linguistics, philology or lexicography.

"Buh buh buh buh!!! Anti means against! annd, annd, annnnnd.... semite is like, middle eastern people... so like, buh, buh, it cant mean anti jew, No Matter What... and if you, like, buh, buh ,buh, claim its just anti jewish, then you're like... buh... being bad, cuz like... buh... there are other semitic people... buh... buh....."

I say agian, do not let the likes of IDF get one over on you because he's better at looking things up in dictionaries.

::grin:: It has a nice ring to it, the first particularly.

I think the term "Pro-Colonialist" has the nicest ring.

:rolleyes: Anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish. Get over it.

Yeah. And "liberal" means communist. Oops, I mean libertarian. And socialist. And anarchist. And Democrat. And anyone who disagrees with self-proclaimed "conservatives." And homosexuals. And...

Gee, maybe words mean a whole bunch of different things, many times nonsensical, and contradictory, and offensive, and arguable. Not only that but we as humans, who existed before language itself, have the capacity to discuss these contradictions and nonsensicalities! How about that!

Here's to you, Saddam!

Thanks for the memories of the children you murdered, the mass graves, and the country you ran into the ground so you could be rich.

Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.

Thanks for the panic people feel when they hear whistles and sirens.

Here's to the Iraqi conscripts your Fedayen fanatics forced to fight my friends at gunpoint.

Here's to the good people of Iraq who won't have to suffer under you any more.

Here's to my friends Kevin Waruinge and Ryan Smith who died helping to free the country you oppressed.

Here's to you dead at the end of a rope you blood thirsty murdering motherfucker.


Posted this in the other thread. Only appropriate it's posted here.

Another point against the "buh buh, i caint read no dicshnary" knuckledragger "anti semite can't mean anti-jewish, cuz, semite doesnt just mean jewish" mob:

There aren't, in any degree or number which any reasonable or honest person would regard as relevant, people who are anti-semitic in the sense of "against people who speak semitic language or are of semitic stock."

Gee couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Yeah. And "liberal" means communist. Oops, I mean libertarian. And socialist. And anarchist. And Democrat. And anyone who disagrees with self-proclaimed "conservatives." And homosexuals. And...

Gee, maybe words mean a whole bunch of different things, many times nonsensical, and contradictory, and offensive, and arguable. Not only that but we as humans, who existed before language itself, have the capacity to discuss these contradictions and nonsensicalities! How about that!

:rolleyes: way to go off topic. These "analogies" have no resemblence with the term anti-Semitism, which means anti-Jewish, and nothing but anti-Jewish.

Yeah. And "liberal" means communist. Oops, I mean libertarian. And socialist. And anarchist. And Democrat. And anyone who disagrees with self-proclaimed "conservatives." And homosexuals. And...

Gee, maybe words mean a whole bunch of different things, many times nonsensical, and contradictory, and offensive, and arguable. Not only that but we as humans, who existed before language itself, have the capacity to discuss these contradictions and nonsensicalities! How about that!

What exactly are you arguing?

Are you arguing that we should single-handedly change the definition of anti-semite?
That's not going to happen in a single argument on a NSG forum. You've got to take on society.

If you are arguing that the social definition of anti-semite is technically wrong, then you are correct. And you can be correct till you are blue in the face, but this does not change the fact that in the english language anti-semite equates to anti-Jewish.

Yeah, maybe they dont matter...
and maybe...
you dont know anything about linguistics, philology or lexicography.

"Buh buh buh buh!!! Anti means against! annd, annd, annnnnd.... semite is like, middle eastern people... so like, buh, buh, it cant mean anti jew, No Matter What... and if you, like, buh, buh ,buh, claim its just anti jewish, then you're like... buh... being bad, cuz like... buh... there are other semitic people... buh... buh....."

I say agian, do not let the likes of IDF get one over on you because he's better at looking things up in dictionaries.You know, dictionaries don't tell everything. I had Latin and some ancient Greek in school back in the days, that's why I often use words in their literal meaning, as many English words are derived from Latin (often via French) and Greek. And I couldn't care less what any dictionary has to say about certain words. The word anti-Semite is constructed out of two parts the meanings and usage of which are pretty clear. And whatever IDF may say, he's a racist, hater of Arabs, and pro-Israel (which in itself is pretty close to Arab-hater). And he bears as nick the name of a killing organization.

prove any of those with the quote fuction if you can...
oh wait.. you cant.. because I never said that.


"Jewish conspiracy"
...
"Jews invented the Holocaust.."
...
"jews made 9-11"
...
"..jews made that 9-11 movie to support... whoever"



I proved it with the quote function
and only taken out of context
but that will appeal to IDF et al
who thrive on out of context

Here's to you, Saddam!
...
Thanks for the nightmares Americans have about your missiles and your gas.
...
nighmarish kurds (survivors) have about our gas...

I am assuming you are one of US.

I think the term "Pro-Colonialist" has the nicest ring.

Pack up and go home you colonialist dog! You are sitting on Canadian indian land! Leave you imperialist canadian wallstreet tool of the bouergousie!







To be fair, I think you guys are getting Judaism the RELIGION confused with JEWS the ETHNIC/PEOPLE group.

It's very confusing to me also-when I tell someone I'm jewish they sometimes think I practice judaism. Not so.

Another point against the "buh buh, i caint read no dicshnary" knuckledragger "anti semite can't mean anti-jewish, cuz, semite doesnt just mean jewish" mob:

There aren't, in any degree or number which any reasonable or honest person would regard as relevant, people who are anti-semitic in the sense of "against people who speak semitic language or are of semitic stock."

He did not say it could not mean anti jewish
he quite correctly presented the case that it can mean anti any other semitic
group as well.

So just by virtue of being Jewish does not make you immune from being
antisemitic
If as in the case of the Israeli state, it commits race based crimes against non jewish semites.

You know, dictionaries don't tell everything. I had Latin and some ancient Greek in school back in the days, that's why I often use words in their literal meaning, as many English words are derived from Latin (often via French) and Greek. And I couldn't care less what any dictionary has to say about certain words. The word anti-Semite is constructed out of two parts the meanings and usage of which are pretty clear.

Oh, me too. But seeing as language evolves and if you want to be understood in present day English, it's best to stick with what the dictionary has to say about certain words. Otherwise, you run the risk of stupid arguments like these, and of being misunderstood.

:rolleyes: way to go off topic. These "analogies" have no resemblence with the term anti-Semitism, which means anti-Jewish, and nothing but anti-Jewish.

They do show that language is not an all-powerful god against whom no man can ever argue.

Oops, I mean to say yes massa, I's a lowly a-rab and who gives a fuck if I'm a Semite. There, better?

Yeah, maybe they dont matter...
and maybe...
you dont know anything about linguistics, philology or lexicography.

Hmm, and maybe, that's an ad hominem argument! Yes, I must be ignorant because I disagree... and I must be an Anti-Semite because I oppose Israel's policies... and I must be "left wing" because I don't think Muslims are evil.

Language is USED. As you yourself said. It is not prescribed in a Holy Bible. Merriam Webster is not God, not even the God of the English language. I do not use "anti-Semite" to refer exclusively to Jew-hatred. So, maybe you can take your foolish mockery elsewhere.

"Buh buh buh buh!!! Anti means against! annd, annd, annnnnd.... semite is like, middle eastern people... so like, buh, buh, it cant mean anti jew, No Matter What...

buh buh buh.... that's a strawman! If you're going to mock my argument, at least have the intellectual honesty to mock my actual argument, instead of trying to make it seem like I'm a fucking moron.

Get a fucking grip.

You know, dictionaries don't tell everything. I had Latin and some ancient Greek in school back in the days, that's why I often use words in their literal meaning, as many English words are derived from Latin (often via French) and Greek. And I couldn't care less what any dictionary has to say about certain words. The word anti-Semite is constructed out of two parts the meanings and usage of which are pretty clear. And whatever IDF may say, he's a racist, hater of Arabs, and pro-Israel (which in itself is pretty close to Arab-hater). And he bears as nick the name of a killing organization.

Pro-Israeli instantly means Arab hater? YOU are the racist in here, not IDF.

I proved it with the quote function
and only taken out of context
but that will appeal to IDF et al
who thrive on out of contextthats allrite.. the little green arrow will bring the full context..

thats why I love that green arrow. ;)

You know, dictionaries don't tell everything. I had Latin and some ancient Greek in school back in the days, that's why I often use words in their literal meaning, as many English words are derived from Latin (often via French) and Greek. And I couldn't care less what any dictionary has to say about certain words. The word anti-Semite is constructed out of two parts the meanings and usage of which are pretty clear. And whatever IDF may say, he's a racist, hater of Arabs, and pro-Israel (which in itself is pretty close to Arab-hater). And he bears as nick the name of a killing organization.

If you think, for some bizzare and wrongheaded reason, that a word necessarily means some quasi-mathematical sum of its parts, then you do not understand how language works.

There are no two ways around it, you're mistaken.

Coming up with bizzare and clearly wrong arguments like the one against using 'anti-semitic' to mean 'anti-jewish' doesnt win you or anyone else critical of israel any points, it makes you look like a rambling fool.

There are a lot of very valid points against israel, like, say, that it has a policy of slaughtering civilians.

There is a difference between factual arguments and gobbleygook arguments based on a misunderstanding of word-formation and meaning.

If you don't care what dictionaries (which chronicle what words mean) say, then you'll probably continue to be mistaken in your use of words, which will only lead to you appearing less educated and less intelligent.

I didnt get a degree in linguistics to make this stuff up, I promise.

I say for a third time, you're digging a deep hole by pressing this, and you're allowing yourself to be bested by the liked of IDF merely because he's better at looking words up in the dictionary. Choose your battles, &c.

What exactly are you arguing?

Are you arguing that we should single-handedly change the definition of anti-semite?
That's not going to happen in a single argument on a NSG forum. You've got to take on society.

I'm saying I use a different word. A more precise word. I'm an INTP, I like being precise. As for the rest of the society, I have no delusions that arguments on NSG will change society single-handedly. Big deal. I'm not out to change society, are you?

If you are arguing that the social definition of anti-semite is technically wrong, then you are correct. And you can be correct till you are blue in the face, but this does not change the fact that in the english language anti-semite equates to anti-Jewish.

I guess I'll stick with being correct then. Just like I don't use the phrase "drugs and alcohol," since it implies alcohol is not a drug or is qualitatively different from all other psychoactives; nor do I adhere to the socially-defined factoid that "nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth." I prefer being correct than popular. I sleep better at night.

Pack up and go home you colonialist dog! You are sitting on Canadian indian land! Leave you imperialist canadian wallstreet tool of the bouergousie!

To be fair, I think you guys are getting Judaism the RELIGION confused with JEWS the ETHNIC/PEOPLE group.

It's very confusing to me also-when I tell someone I'm jewish they sometimes think I practice judaism. Not so.At least there is nothing confusing about your NS title.

Captain pooby
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oceandrive's troll account
Posts: 268

:D

They do show that language is not an all-powerful god against whom no man can ever argue.

Oops, I mean to say yes massa, I's a lowly a-rab and who gives a fuck if I'm a Semite. There, better?



Hmm, and maybe, that's an ad hominem argument! Yes, I must be ignorant because I disagree... and I must be an Anti-Semite because I oppose Israel's policies... and I must be "left wing" because I don't think Muslims are evil.

Language is USED. As you yourself said. It is not prescribed in a Holy Bible. Merriam Webster is not God, not even the God of the English language. I do not use "anti-Semite" to refer exclusively to Jew-hatred. So, maybe you can take your foolish mockery elsewhere.



buh buh buh.... that's a strawman! If you're going to mock my argument, at least have the intellectual honesty to mock my actual argument, instead of trying to make it seem like I'm a fucking moron.

Get a fucking grip.

You're not disagreeing about an opinion, you're denying a fact because you don't know what you're talking about.

You're doing the same thing that a shit-for-brains creationist does when he insists the earth is 6000 years old and created by god because "every creation has a creator."

A trivial tautology that ignores a great deal of facts.

Look ignorance up in the dictionary, maybe. :rolleyes:

Saddam Hussein executed (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html)

Well I cannot say that I am going to miss him terribly.
But if Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity and "killing" 550 people without warrants than why isn't Bush on trial in Iraq for the innocents killed during the invasion?
Even if you do not lay the entire Iraq war at Bush's feet surely he is just as guilty of war crimes for ordering the bombing of Baghdad knowing that civilians would be killed.
It is not like Saddam actually killed any of those people.He ordered them killed by his army in much the same way that Bush ordered the bombings.

And justice for all?

And Wilgrove I would like you to point out the passage of the bible where Jesus himself says that we should hang people.
Because if I remember correctly there was a lot of talk of turning the other cheek and loving thine enemies.

What exactly are you arguing?

If you are arguing that the social definition of anti-semite is technically wrong, then you are correct. And you can be correct till you are blue in the face, but this does not change the fact that in the english language anti-semite equates to anti-Jewish.

Words only have "social definitions" you're trying to make up some kind of distinction without a difference.

He's not correct if he thinks, for some wrongheaded reason, that a world necessarily means some quasi-mathematical sum of its etymological and morphemic parts.

That isnt how language works and it isnt how word-formation works.

A person can pick apart the etymologies of words all day, and the only significant insight to be gained is in learning the history of the word.

Words which have archaic or jargon meanings in some senses do not necessarily carry those meanings into words in general use of which they are constituents.

I'm saying I use a different word. A more precise word. I'm an INTP, I like being precise. As for the rest of the society, I have no delusions that arguments on NSG will change society single-handedly. Big deal. I'm not out to change society, are you?
.

Saying there is anything amiss in the english word "antisemitic" because "semite" refers to something besides the jews in another context *is not being precise.*

If you were to happen upon someone who, for some reason or another, hated all semitic-language speakers, you might win points for wit by pointing out that the english world "antisemitic," which means "anti-jewish" derives from the term 'semitic' which refers to a language and racial group to which the jews belong.

That would be precise, but you have things backwards.

If you have any genuine interest in being precise with language then you would do to get a better notion of how words are formed.

Words which have archaic or jargon meanings in some senses do not necessarily carry those meanings into words in general use of which they are constituents.

::thumbs up::

the best example I can think of is in names. Just because someone is named Brittany, does not mean she is from Britain.

Words only have "social definitions" you're trying to make up some kind of distinction without a difference.

He's not correct if he thinks, for some wrongheaded reason, that a world necessarily means some quasi-mathematical sum of its etymological and morphemic parts.

That isnt how language works and it isnt how word-formation works.

A person can pick apart the etymologies of words all day, and the only significant insight to be gained is in learning the history of the word.

Words which have archaic or jargon meanings in some senses do not necessarily carry those meanings into words in general use of which they are constituents.But you surely see that in this particular case the meaning of the word is an abuse of its literal meaning. A distortion to pursue racist political ends. To place Jews back into a descent they in reality no longer belong in.
I've lived in England, Spain, France, and Germany, and I am almost sure that folks don't necessarily only understand the word in its politically correct western meaning as equivalent to anti-Jewish. Indeed they find the word somewhat sinister.

Anyways, IDF is a racist, no matter what the word is.

I didnt get a degree in linguistics to make this stuff up, I promise.



You were quite right to say that english words are not always the sum
of their components.
The english language can be very strange indeed
flammable and inflammable
being one of many many oddities.

However use of the word anti is exclusively used to indicate opposition to the meaning
of whatever noun it is attached to.

Somebody quickly tell us the opposite of disestablishmentarianism.


What do we understand by terms like
antifreeze
or antiamerican

If we speak of pudding and I declare that I am antipudding there
is little chance that I will be misunderstood.


There is simply no argument to make that antisemitic can only be used
about one particular branch of the semitic races.
It's not in our dictionaries is a rather foolish call to authority.
Dictionaries do not contain the sum total of all english words.
There are words in common use that have not yet made it into them
there are words in them that no one has used for a very long time.
They are at best a guide not a law.
It's not in the dictionary you may not use the term only applies
for games of scrabble.


an·ti
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
Sem·ite
–noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.


The worst that can be said about the original poster who attracted such
ludicrous flaming is that he is anti israel (as it currently exists) and anti the israeli defence forces.

I would be in the same position but I am not antisemitic nor am I anti jewish.

When Jews were being mistreated horribly all over the world it was understandable that antisemitic would be used solely for that mistreatment.
But when you have one semitic race abusing another semitic race
they should hold back on using the word as it becomes silly.

What do we understand by terms like
antifreeze

I do apologize for reducing that whole, well-thought-out post to just this.

Antifreeze, while it is understood to mean something which prevents freezing, is not the opposite of freeze, as your definition of the word anti would have us believe.

Antifreeze is an entirely different noun, describing a liquid that is dangerous to drink, but useful for cars in the winter.

It, in itself, is a sort of breakdown of your point.

I do apologize for reducing that whole, well-thought-out post to just this.

Antifreeze, while it is understood to mean something which prevents freezing, is not the opposite of freeze, as your definition of the word anti would have us believe.

Antifreeze is an entirely different noun, describing a liquid that is dangerous to drink, but useful for cars in the winter.

It, in itself, is a sort of breakdown of your point.

Absolutely right
its purpose is to what?
oppose freezing is it?

only one of my provided words suggested anti as purely an opposite
and that was suggesting its use with disestablishmentarianism
after all we don't use antihot to mean cold or vice versa

Yikes okay I did miswrite myself and did say it was used purely to create opposites.
Perhaps I should have said more like to create words in opposition to the word it is added to.
That had been my intention.


I was wondering if people would bring up antidote or antiquate neither of which is the opposite
nor in opposition to those words when anti is removed from them.
But that is the nature of the english language it does have oddities in there for all kinds of reasons.

But the definitions I did give were quite clear about anti and about semite.
The ones at the end anyway
However we are now very sidetracked

Today yet another Iraqi was murdered and while none of us believe the world has lost
a good man by any stretch of the imagination. Iraq is poorer for having a government that
would take such an action as if there have not been enough lives taken.

But death penalty is not murder.

You would agree that the death penalty is not murder because it is state sanctioned?

While he was in power, Saddam Hussein basically was the state. Therefore making any that he killed victims not of murder but of state sanctioned killing, ie, the death penalty. Perfectly legal, since he was the state.

Still, I reiterate my original statement that his death doesn't matter, the situation is the same as before, except with the addition of one filled pine box.

You were quite right to say that english words are not always the sum
of their components.


However use of the word anti is exclusively used to indicate opposition to the meaning
of whatever noun it is attached to.

.

The first part here directly contradicts the second part.

I think I have a simple way to explain this.

"antisemitic" is a word in itself, and does not indicate what might be literally signified were it analyzed in terms of the morpheme "anti" and the term "semitic."

In the english language, 'antisemitic' has come to mean "anti jewish," even if semitic, in other contexts, refers to a group more broad than the jews.

When someone says 'anti semitic,' he doesnt mean opposed to the semitic language and racial group, he means opposed to the jews.

There doesnt seem to be any sinister political subtext to 'antisemitic.'

1) most people who use the word probably don't know that semitic is more broad in linguistics and anthropology, and don't really care, because they're looking for a word to describe being anti-jewish.

2) I would think that many arabs and jews, especially the racists in the two camps, like to consider themselves to be pretty seperate stock, and don't care to think of themselves as both being equally 'semitic.'

The big lesson to be learned here is that word formation is *not* math, and is *not* a zero sum game. Raining cats and dogs doesnt mean cats and dogs are falling from the sky, even though it says that they are. Anti-semite doesnt mean opposed to 'the semites,' it means opposed to the jews.

From the OED:
Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic a.

1881 Athenæum 3 Sept. 305/2 The author, apparently an anti-Semite. Ibid., Anti-Semitic literature is very prosperous in Germany. 1882 Athenæum 11 Feb. 184/1 In these days of anti-Semitism. 1935 Economist 24 Aug. 366/1 The Nazi Party stalwarts..have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant..crusade. 1941 J. S. HUXLEY Uniqueness of Man ii. 50 Germanic nationalism on the one hand and anti-Semitism on the other.

Anyways, IDF is a racist, no matter what the word is.

Indeed, which is all the more reason not to get embroiled in insubstantial and trivial debates over word choice.

I wonder if the people fapping now to Hussein's execution will still be stroking five years from now on if there's a Fall of Baghdad scenario.

Oh wait, they'll blame it on the Democrats.

The first part here directly contradicts the second part.

I think I have a simple way to explain this.

....


as a point of interest

Emil Fackenheim, the Jewish philosopher, has
also adopted this spelling, explaining "... the spelling ought to be
antisemitism without the hyphen, dispelling the notion that there is
an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes" (Emil Fackenheim,
"Post-Holocaust Anti-Jewishness, Jewish Identity and the Centrality of
Israel," in World Jewry and the State of Israel, ed. Moshe Davis, p.

I find it amusing that Iran is praising the death of Saddam. Given that Saddam started a war with Iran it is hardly surprising but still, it is nice for Bush and Ahmadinejad to agree on something isn't it?