Froggy's

RobertDyck · 2006-11-03 13:35:21

Wait a minute, drive in Manhattan!? Are you nuts? I visited Manhattan one weekend; I worked in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and drove in to be a tourist Saturday and Sunday. I made a point of parking at the first parking lot I found after crossing the Lincoln Tunnel. It was painful getting that far. You don't drive. The island is only 11 blocks from the West River to the East River. I walked across and back. Use a subway if you have to travel the length. Do you know how many people live on Manhattan Island alone? There's no way for cars to be effective in a city that crowded. When I lived in Toronto I found it took 45 minutes to drive from highway 401 to the Toronto Eaton Centre, the big shopping mall downtown. It took 30 minutes by subway, so park at the Yorkdale shopping centre for free and spend $1.10 for subway fare. It's cheaper and quicker than downtown parking. You have to pay the fare each way and it has gone up since then, but still cheaper than parking. But Manhattan is orders of magnitude more insane. Don't ever, ever, EVER drive in Manhattan. It can't be fixed without killing off 90% of the population. Cars require space and drive on a surface, Manhattan is 3 dimensional, short buildings are 20 stories, the Empire State Building has 86 stories plus the dirigible tower, the WTC twin towers had 110 stories. Why would you expect a single layer of private automobile traffic to be able to serve that? Use the subway and use your feet, the small island is the only place it's practical to do so.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 01:09:31

Wait a minute, drive in Manhattan!? Are you nuts? I visited Manhattan one weekend; I worked in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and drove in to be a tourist Saturday and Sunday. I made a point of parking at the first parking lot I found after crossing the Lincoln Tunnel. It was painful getting that far. You don't drive. The island is only 11 blocks from the West River to the East River. I walked across and back. Use a subway if you have to travel the length. Do you know how many people live on Manhattan Island alone? There's no way for cars to be effective in a city that crowded. When I lived in Toronto I found it took 45 minutes to drive from highway 401 to the Toronto Eaton Centre, the big shopping mall downtown. It took 30 minutes by subway, so park at the Yorkdale shopping centre for free and spend $1.10 for subway fare. It's cheaper and quicker than downtown parking. You have to pay the fare each way and it has gone up since then, but still cheaper than parking. But Manhattan is orders of magnitude more insane. Don't ever, ever, EVER drive in Manhattan. It can't be fixed without killing off 90% of the population. Cars require space and drive on a surface, Manhattan is 3 dimensional, short buildings are 20 stories, the Empire State Building has 86 stories plus the dirigible tower, the WTC twin towers had 110 stories. Why would you expect a single layer of private automobile traffic to be able to serve that? Use the subway and use your feet, the small island is the only place it's practical to do so.

If you can have multistory parking garages, you can also have multistory streets, that way you can have enough street surfaces to accomodate the multistory buildings and all their occupants. The down side of course is their would be less great views out side your office and apartment windows and less sunshine too. But who ever said everybody had to cram into a small space like that anyway. If you have to do that to get some decent transportation, you might as well spread out. Otherwise the purpose of a city is to minimize travel time by bringing a whole lot of places close together, but if it takes 15 minutes to travel around the block the advantage of closeness is negated. I think the invention of the automobile has served one purpose; to allow people to live further apart from one another. It is safer for a population to be spread out rather than being packed in too.

We live in a world with nuclear weapons, with all of us packed in together, we make it easier for one nuclear bomb to kill all of us. If we spread out, then it becomes harder to kill all of us with only one bomb. Once of the reasons I support space travel is that it will allow the human race to spread out even further. Some people seem to have this idea , that we would go into space in order to have our elbows in our neighbor's faces and so we can pack ourselves cheek to jowl. I think some people love cities: they love the pushing and shoving, they like smelling each others body odor and the noisy neighbors who are always banging on your walls, floors and ceilings.

DonPanic · 2006-11-04 03:41:30

so often a map does no good in finding a way to you destination in this mess

Don't you have a GPS box witch tells you the way to go ? :shock: Whaw, I thougt that the US were the most technologic peoples

Otherwise the purpose of a city is to minimize travel time by bringing a whole lot of places close together, but if it takes 15 minutes to travel around the block the advantage of closeness is negated.

There is about nothing I can't get within a 20' bike ride range, food hypermarket is there cross the Avenue, we call a taxi-van for heavy stuffs, in center of Paris, there's a metro station each 500 yards.
Less than 300 yards from my house, I have french, arab, chinese, italian, turkish, indian restaurants, some opened up to one AM, subway station at 100 yards, why should I need a car ?

I think the invention of the automobile has served one purpose; to allow people to live further apart from one another.

I'd hate to live without the Paris crowd of peoples easy contact
Few views of the Paris district I live in
My girlfriend when swimming the dog (the dog loves to swim...)
St Martin Channel lifting bridge (We like it as it is, with it's XIXth Century technology, we don't want a new one)
The same lifted up http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … _paris.jpg
Warm day and Paris Girls by St Martin Channel (a 100 pounds wheight average difference with US girls )
Cars, bikers and pedestrians street room sharing (Walking and biking prevent obesity)
Second hand market day in my Paris district (You know what ? are these peoples are really nice..)
Saturday afternoon this summer, Parc des Buttes Chaumont, Paris (10' walk from my home, 5' bike riding)
My main transportation mean (I dont want a new one, it's personally customized)

IIt is safer for a population to be spread out rather than being packed in too.

When there are peoples chatting on the Avenue up to 2AM, then, we feel safer than when nobody's out

We live in a world with nuclear weapons, with all of us packed in together, we make it easier for one nuclear bomb to kill all of us.

I perfectly know which metro station is a shelter to a nuclear attack, and by the way, we dont live with these paranoïd thoughts

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-04 09:25:11

so often a map does no good in finding a way to you destination in this mess
Don't you have a GPS box witch tells you the way to go ? :shock: Whaw, I thougt that the US were the most technologic peoples
Otherwise the purpose of a city is to minimize travel time by bringing a whole lot of places close together, but if it takes 15 minutes to travel around the block the advantage of closeness is negated.
There is about nothing I can't get within a 20' bike ride range, food hypermarket is there cross the Avenue, we call a taxi-van for heavy stuffs, in center of Paris, there's a metro station each 500 yards.
Less than 300 yards from my house, I have french, arab, chinese, italian, turkish, indian restaurants, some opened up to one AM, subway station at 100 yards, why should I need a car ?

You can also get run over by a car while you are riding your bike though traffic and the ambulance will have some difficulty getting to you because of the traffic and once the ambulance gets to you, it will take some time for it to take you to the hostipatl again because of the traffic, and meanwhile all this emergency activity will only slow down traffic that much more and the police block cars and take statements, the cars get stuck and can't get to where they are going, this will make them fume and more likely to drive like a baat out of Hell when traffic finally lets up to make up for lost time, and therefore risking collision with another hapless bicyclist. Also in New York City, bicyclists have a tendency to ride their bikes on sidewalks, and down the wrong way on one way streets, they tend to bolt from between cars forcing cars that suddenly see them come out of nowhere to slam on their breaks to avoid hitting them and may get rear-ended for their trouble. I think safety is better served by a smoothly flowing traffic system that includes cars.

I think the invention of the automobile has served one purpose; to allow people to live further apart from one another.

I'd hate to live without the Paris crowd of peoples easy contact[/QUOTE]
A crowd of people you can lose your children in, a crowd of people where pick pockets can bump into you and steal your wallet while you are momentarily distacted, then you have to cancel all your credit cards and replace all those stolen IDs with new ones, oh joy, I have had that experience.

Few views of the Paris district I live in
My girlfriend when swimming the dog (the dog loves to swim...)
St Martin Channel lifting bridge (We like it as it is, with it's XIXth Century technology, we don't want a new one)
The same lifted up http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … _paris.jpg
Warm day and Paris Girls by St Martin Channel (a 100 pounds wheight average difference with US girls )
Cars, bikers and pedestrians street room sharing (Walking and biking prevent obesity)
Second hand market day in my Paris district (You know what ? are these peoples are really nice..)
Saturday afternoon this summer, Parc des Buttes Chaumont, Paris (10' walk from my home, 5' bike riding)
My main transportation mean (I dont want a new one, it's personally customized)
IIt is safer for a population to be spread out rather than being packed in too.
When there are peoples chatting on the Avenue up to 2AM, then, we feel safer than when nobody's out

You are safer in some ways and less safe in others. If a terrorist wants to attack a crowd, you are more likely to be attacked if you are in the crowd. If you are in the woods, you may be attacked by a Grizzly bear and their would be no one to dial 911, of course it helps if you have a gun.

We live in a world with nuclear weapons, with all of us packed in together, we make it easier for one nuclear bomb to kill all of us.
I perfectly know which metro station is a shelter to a nuclear attack, and by the way, we dont live with these paranoïd thoughts

You can choose to ignore the danger, just like the people had who worked in the World Trade Center that morning on September 11, 2001, a date which most liberals would like to pretend never happened.

DonPanic · 2006-11-04 09:36:26

You can choose to ignore the danger, just like the people had who worked in the World Trade Center that morning on September 11, 2001, a date which most liberals would like to pretend never happened

When you throw such infamous accusations that do not correspond to any truth, Mr KalbfusSS, you are just properly a disgusting kind of a man, you act as a nazi : "Calumniate, it will always remain something about it"
That's what you do
I'm happy to be separate from you by an ocean

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-05 11:19:52

You can choose to ignore the danger, just like the people had who worked in the World Trade Center that morning on September 11, 2001, a date which most liberals would like to pretend never happened
When you throw such infamous accusations that do not correspond to any truth, Mr KalbfusSS, you are just properly a disgusting kind of a man, you act as a nazi : "Calumniate, it will always remain something about it"
That's what you do
I'm happy to be separate from you by an ocean

If I was a NAZI, I'd be foresquare in support of the Palestinians and other Arabs because they kill Jews. Of course I do not support killing Jews, I support Israel instead. I know who is on America's side and who is not.

I'll bet you meant NAZI in a good way, you mean everything the NAZIS did other than kill millions of Jews. Well I don't support occupying France either, nor do I support Germany Starting World War II.

So maybe you mean that I am like a NAZI in any other way besides killing Jews by the millions in death camps or by starting World War II and occupying France. If you get rid of all those infamous things that NAZIs are famous for, what do you have left? A simple dictator like Saddam Hussein perhaps, but without the Mass Killings?

All those things are so much what I'm not like. All I believe in is that our enemies must be defeated so that they give us no more problems. This tendency for liberals to feel sympathy for the enemy only sustains them and prolongs the war. You should know that, and its the war your proteting isn't it? I don't like wars anymore than you do, but my solution isn't to run away from them, but to destroy the enemy so that he feels that attacking us was a bad experience, and not by rewarding him by allowing him to have something that he was after.

I am right about left-wingers in Europe, they despise NAZIs, but not their Arabic cousins. What it is about NAZIs they don't like, I don't know, because I seem many Arabs and Muslims supporting the same things the NAZIs did.

DonPanic · 2006-11-08 15:10:36

All those things are so much what I'm not like. All I believe in is that our enemies must be defeated so that they give us no more problems.

You don't get rid of ants with a big hammer, even a nuclear hammer.
We're at war at terrorists, it's a tough and long secret work, just like fighting mafia.
When you'll understand this, that's be better.
Just remember that the islamists terrorists planed to crash an airplane over Paris first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
They were defeated and this attack should have been a clear warning to every western intelligence services on the means the terrorists were ready to use and the 9/11 attacks shouldn't have been a surprise for US security services.

I am right about left-wingers in Europe, they despise NAZIs, but not their Arabic cousins. What it is about NAZIs they don't like, I don't know, because I seem many Arabs and Muslims supporting the same things the NAZIs did.

You are all wrong bout french left wingers which, like me, despise almost all religions as being the people's opium, and think that truth is to be found by studies and science and isn't displayed in so-called holly books

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 00:25:11

Then you must certainly agree the Israel is more tollerant of other peoples beliefs than the Islamic countries surrounding it. Perhaps the troubles with Iraq illustrate a point. To make democracy work in the Middle East, you must first displace the natives, shove them aside, and then put colonists in their place who believe in democracy and respect majority rule.

Arab countries consistently try to legislate religion, even our so called allies do that. I don't know why some leftists want to replace Israel with a more conservative Arab state, that institutuinalizes a particular religion to the detriment of other religions. I thought liberals were for the seperation of church and state. Although Israel is a Jewish state, it tollerates other religions to a much greater extent than Arab countries do. To replace Israel with an Islamic Palistine would be a giant step backwards. Conservative as I am, I am not an Islamic conservative and so my sympathies remain with Israel.

noosfractal · 2006-11-09 00:49:51

Then you must certainly agree the Israel is more tollerant of other peoples beliefs than the Islamic countries surrounding it.

Except perhaps for Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman's recent call for ethnic cleansing?

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D … y/9793.htm

DonPanic · 2006-11-09 05:10:43

Then you must certainly agree the Israel is more tollerant of other peoples beliefs than the Islamic countries surrounding it.

I've been to Israel. There are many nice peoples, but there are also colonists which are at least as intolerant as Arabs surrounding them, are racist and call the non jews "goim". If you are not a jew they call you a "goy". I can't be an ally with peoples which call me a "goy".

I shall not respect Israel as long as it occupies and colonises palestinian territories, which means that they still not ready to live in peace with their arab neighbours.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 10:18:53

Then you must certainly agree the Israel is more tollerant of other peoples beliefs than the Islamic countries surrounding it.
Except perhaps for Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman's recent call for ethnic cleansing?
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D … y/9793.htm

"I don't know why the Palestinians deserve a country that is clean of Jews ... and we are becoming a binational country, where 20 percent of the population are minorities. If we want to keep this a Jewish, Zionist country, there is no other solution,"

Ahmed Tibi, an Arab-Israeli lawmaker, said Lieberman's comments were "a call to ethnic cleansing."

Notice that it is the Arab-Israeli lawmaker that says Lieberman's comments were "a call to ethinic cleansing, that was the arab lawmaker's characterization, not Lieberman's.
Lieberman didn't call for ethinic cleansing, he only called for seperating out the Israeli Arabs, revoking their citizenship and expelling them from Israeli. Just because some Arab says something doesn't make it true.
The truth is, the Palestinians by their behavior towards the Israelis have made Lieberman's political career. Avigdor Lieberman is just one of those Israelis that are sick of the violence perpetrated by the Palestinians against Israeli citizens, he doesn't see peace talks or giving up more land as a solution to this, and the Palestinians by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and launching rocket attacks against Israel after that land deal have made his point. Peace talks have gotten nowhere, because the Palestinians have simply refused to quit their violence against Israelis no matter what they were given, it was either "We're mad at you because of the occupation," or "Look we're winning, the Israelis have given us some land, we can't stop now."

The palestinians are of two minds with regards to their enemy, it is either they are weak or they are evil and either opinion is an excuse to keep on killing Israeli citizens. I think the solution is simply to forget about what the Palestinians want in exchange for peace. The Palestinians have made the Doves in Israeli sorry everytime they sat at the negotiating table with them. The political situation is Israel is in part groomed by the Palestinian's behavior. The Israeli left and peaceniks have failed each time of delivering the goods of peace to the Israeli people, they have not ended the conflict by granting concessions, it just spurs the palestinians on for more violence. Perhaps a harsher military hand is what's called for, as everything else has not worked.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 10:27:31

Then you must certainly agree the Israel is more tollerant of other peoples beliefs than the Islamic countries surrounding it.
I've been to Israel. There are many nice peoples, but there are also colonists which are at least as intolerant as Arabs surrounding them, are racist and call the non jews "goim". If you are not a jew they call you a "goy". I can't be an ally with peoples which call me a "goy".
I shall not respect Israel as long as it occupies and colonises palestinian territories, which means that they still not ready to live in peace with their arab neighbours.

And the Arabs pay you back by burning Paris, isn't that nice.

You know, I'd rather be called a "goim" than be murdered, shot, or blown up by an Arab Muslim terrorist. Jews can think whatever they want about nonjews, it just so happens that I have plenty of Jewish friends, but Jews have not been a problem for American soldiers, they have not done the things Arab terrorists have done.

Now honestly, how many Jews have participated in the Paris Riots that you are aware of? Have any Jews burned any cars or buses for example? Do they have trouble getting along with the Police or with French Christians? Do Jews try to convert you or demand that you live according to their ways? If the worst a Jew can do is call me a Goim, I'll take that over an attempted assassination, terrorist attack, rioting or vandalism any day.

Why are you so concerned about what some Jews think of you? Who are those cartoonists and Salman Rushdie afraid of? Certainly not the Jews I think.

DonPanic · 2006-11-09 12:21:53

How honestly, how many Jews have participated in the Paris Riots that you are aware of? Have any Jews burned any cars or buses for example?

Here, a jewish lawyer married with a muslim woman started to support his daughters which wanted to enter public schools with a hijab. That was at the start of the veil affair which spread al over france plenty of muslim women hijab or even niqab.

You know, I'd rather be called a "goim" than be murdered, shot, or blown up by an Arab Muslim terrorist

"Goim" is the plural for "goy".
I don't want to be attacked by terrorists, be arabs or not, I don't neither want to be insulted by Jews living by my side, I never mistreated any Jew.
A jew family lived second floor of my flat. One friday night, the family mother knocked on my door for a help, her daughter just hurted herself with a peace of brokenglass, they hadn't any wound dressing, the mother couldn't move far cause it was Sabbath. I took a bike ride to go and fetch some bandage to a nightly opened drug store.
So, I require the same respect for myself than my own respect for their believes.

Now, you exhaust my patience always saying that Arabs are terrorists, I live in a nice multiethnic district of Paris with no burned cars and lot of these frindly arab storkeepers. In arab countries Arabs are the main victims of terrorism are the most threatened by terrorists.
Stop saying that Arabs are terrorists, that's pure racism.

By the way, a whole lot of your messages are so straight minded that if you intended to support Bush and his policy, I guess that it had the opposite effect on your readers mind, vote against whom you support. Keep on like that, you are more and more unbearable.
I like better to have at least balanced and rather nice chats with some forum members who like peace than to argue endlessly with you and your warmonging and paranoid spirit.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 13:12:47

How honestly, how many Jews have participated in the Paris Riots that you are aware of? Have any Jews burned any cars or buses for example?
Here, a jewish lawyer married with a muslim woman started to support his daughters which wanted to enter public schools with a hijab. That was at the start of the veil affair which spread al over france plenty of muslim women hijab or even niqab. I wouldn't be surprised. Many Jews are pro-Palestinian in New York state, because they are by tradition liberal, they are also a nice comfortable distance from those Palestinians that want to kill Jews, so they can give then rhetorical support and never mind them killing their fellow Jews in Israel.

You know, I'd rather be called a "goim" than be murdered, shot, or blown up by an Arab Muslim terrorist
"Goim" is the plural for "goy"

. I don't even know what the word means, I never cared to study Yiddish to find out either. If they want to call me names in their own language that is their affair, I'm not interested in marrying any of their Jewish daughters either, so I care little for what the Jewish community thinks about non-jews in their own language.

I don't want to be attacked by terrorists, be arabs or not, I don't neither want to be insulted by Jews living by my side, I never mistreated any Jew.

Why do you care? If you go around saying that Palestinians have every right to go kill their relatives in Israel, then I'm sure their opinion of you is not going to be very high. However if you insult Muhammad and do so publicly, you better watch your back, they'll do worse than call you "Goim".

A jew family lived second floor of my flat. One saturday night, the family mother knocked on my door for a help, her daughter just hurted herself with a peace of brokenglass, they hadn't any wound dressing, the mother couldn't move far cause it was Sabbath. I took a bike ride to go and fetch some bandage to a nightly opened drug store.
So, I require the same respect for myself than my own respect for their believes.

I think the Palestinians who launch rockets into Israel every day and night and target civilians are murderers. Insults I can handle, but violence has got to stop.

Now, you exhaust my patience always saying that Arabs are terrorists, I live in a nice multiethnic district of Paris with no burned cars and lot of these friendly arab storkeepers. In arab countries Arabs are the main victims of terrorism are the most threatened by terrorists.

Then why do they elect terrorists into their government? I distinctly remember Palestinians voting in a Hamas Terrorist government after Israel relinquished some land and forcibly removed Jewish settlers, that was very hard for the Israelis to do. Now imagine you country giving land to the Germans and focribly removing French Citizens from that land to buy peace with the Germans and yet having the Germans still declare war on you and invade. That is like what is happening in Israel. Maybe your local Arab store keeper is not interested in violence against you, but then he has no reason to, and he would like you to shop in his store.

Stop saying that Arabs are terrorists, that's pure racism.

Not all Arabs of course, but an unacceptably large number of them either are terrorists or support terrorists, which in my view amounts to the same thing. I don't like any sort of terrorism at all, and any group that supports terrorism, I don't support, I support their opponents instead. Support for terrorism of any stripe makes the world a more dangerous place for you and me.

By the way, a whole lot of your messages are so straight minded that if you intended to support Bush and his policy, I guess that it had the opposite effect on your readers mind, vote against whom you support. Keep on like that, you are more and more unbearable.
I like better to have at least balanced and rather nice chats with some forum members who like peace than to argue endlessly with you and your warmonging and paranoid spirit.

I think it is wrong to demonize George Bush as he has been demonized by the Press and in Europe, and for no good reason other than he is a Republican and a patriotic American. I wish you would have a more balanced approach. The World has greater problems that George W. Bush, and at least you could recognize that he is trying to solve them in his own way, instead of going out of your way to make his job more difficult.

Who is the racist here, I wonder? Is it George Bush who believed that Democracy could work in the Middle East, and who wanted to give the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, or is it his critics like yourself who say Arabs aren't ready for Democracy or too stupid for it, or too violent. George Bush had faith in them, despite all the evidence which you site that is to the contrary. If you think we must support dictators and warlords in Iraq and that we must partition the country into sections because the various ethinic groups can't get along, isn't that racism to look down your nose at them in that way?

The French are good enough for democracy and to choose their own government, bgut you say in effect that the Arabs are not, that we should not push democracy on them because Arabs are "unworthy of self-governance." George Bush is definitely the optimist in this argument, that's for sure, but the liberal position is that its immoral to take down a dictator who is slaughtering his people, and that dictators are the only things Arabs are good for.

George Bush has had some good intentions for them, but the Media and the liberals have given him a hard time about that and have in effect encouraged the insurgents to attack US soldiers by giving them hope of winning with their negative news coverage. the result has been a Democratic Congress and Senate in the US and a Setback for Iraqi Democracy, all because the libs and leftists want to see George Bush lose. The Iraqi people have paid a price for that, and if that's not racism or at least cultural bias, then I don't know what is.

DonPanic · 2006-11-09 16:51:29

I think the Palestinians who launch rockets into Israel every day and night and target civilians are murderers. Insults I can handle, but violence has got to stop. (....)If you go around saying that Palestinians have every right to go kill their relatives in Israel, then I'm sure their opinion of you is not going to be very high.

The first violence is 40 years of israeli occupation on palestinian territory
The following map shows what is palestinian territory left surrounded by the grey israeli occupation zone. You have not understod where stands the injustice, and that occupied peoples have the legitimate right to attack occupiers.

Just try to realise the map scale, this pelestinian territory is less than 35 miles wide.
That's not the first time I link at occupation map. You dont want to understand, that's why terrorists take this as a pretext for the 9/11 attack, because USA is the only country which as some influence on Israel and does about nothing to oblige Israel to scarp off.

bgut you say in effect that the Arabs are not, that we should not push democracy on them because Arabs are "unworthy of self-governance. (...) George Bush has had some good intentions for them

You shouldn't have pushed an unwanted democracy.
It takes time to peoples with clanish traditions to get used to democratic processes. Many countries have the appearance of democracy, have vote, and once leaders have power, they abuse the populations with power, favour their own clans, that's a fact, not a racist point of view, as it is a fact that Hitler went to power thanks to peoples' vote.
Democracy isn't a guaranty against dictatorship, say the contrary is just naive. Democracy often follows welfare state. Hungry peoples don't care about democracy, they want to eat first and will follow any kind of a leader which promises food.

but the liberal position is that its immoral to take down a dictator who is slaughtering his people, and that dictators are the only things Arabs are good for.

It's not a liberal position that set my opinion on Iraq, but the french intelligence services repports saying that if Saddam was toppled with a war, the situation in Iraq would become out of control. The Sunnis had weapons, the US administration gave weapons to the Kurds and the Shias, with as a result, an unavoidable civil war. The facts are more tenacious than your american dreams of worlwide democracy.

Job hasn't been finished in Afghanistan, where Europeans are involved too. There, the money spent in Iraq would have been essential to make of this operation a succes, now we have 2 big problems to solve, not including Pakistan where north eastern provinces are out of control, while Iran and North Korea toughen attitude because of this all failure.

I think it is wrong to demonize George Bush as he has been demonized by the Press and in Europe

Bush demonized himself when going at war with lies on WMD, against 75% of the western Europe public opinion he didn't care of, and each time there have been a vote, the european leaders which allied Bush in opposition of each public opinion were punished. That's well done!
Democracy is also the respect of the peoples' will.

It's quite insane from you to keep on a failing point of view on middle east politics when even Bush recognizes that the situation is really unpleasant and fires the main responsible for this failure.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 18:57:01

I think the Palestinians who launch rockets into Israel every day and night and target civilians are murderers. Insults I can handle, but violence has got to stop. (....)If you go around saying that Palestinians have every right to go kill their relatives in Israel, then I'm sure their opinion of you is not going to be very high.
The first violence is 40 years of israeli occupation on palestinian territory
The following map shows what is palestinian territory left surrounded by the grey israeli occupation zone. You have not understod where stands the injustice, and that occupied peoples have the legitimate right to attack occupiers.

You have just dehumanized the victims or random rocket attacks by Palestinians, you abstract them and call them occupiers. Don't you realize that most of them were probably born in Israel, just like I was born here in the United States. My ancestors were colonists too, they came here from Bavaria in the 1750s, no doubt they must have displace a few Indians when the settled, does that mean I'm going to take it kindly if some American Indian activist murders my cousins because they are colonists in his opinion and should not be on this continent? I think not. Any way the Jews have a greater claim to Israel than my ancestors had for settling here, at least the Jews can claim that they are returning to their ancient homeland, the one they were driven out of by the Roman Empire. There is plenty of archeological evidence to suggest that the Jews lived here for thousands of years, even under the Dome of the Rock is Harod's Temple or the remains of it. Now I don't begrudge Native Americans the right to live in my community should they so desire, even though their are very few native Americans in my neighborhood that I know about. I think the Palestinians could stand to be a little more tollerant of cultural diversity. Their religion is after all an offshoot of Judaism just like Christianity, surely they must understand the Jews historic claim to this area. The God Allah is after all a Jewish God, the Arabs didn't invent Him in 700 AD. Physically their is plenty of room for both Arab and Jew in the Israeli/Palestinian area, I see no physical reason why they both can't coexist in the same place. The reason they can't coexist is supplyied by the Palestinians and their rocket attacks on Jewish towns in Israel. I believe in peace and mutual coexistance between the peoples, and most importantly for the Palestinians to stop fighting and killing innocent civilians just because they belong to the wrong religion. I think they will find if they do that that the Israelis will have no reason to bother them.

As for how well you get along with Jews, I'm sure if you said to them what you just said here, about how the Palestinians have the right to kill their relatives because theirs is a legitimate struggle, they are not going to like you very much, and if they call you a Goim, whatever that is, should you be so surprised?

Just try to realise the map scale, this palestinian territory is less than 35 miles wide.

But that's not the only place that Palestinians live, they also live in Jordan, which is quite a bit larger in territory than Israel, in fact the majority of Jordanians are Palestinians. There are also Palestinians in Lebanon. The Israeli Jews however are confined to Israel and the West Bank Territory. If you pull back on that map so that Jordan and Lebanon also fall into view, then you get a better idea of where the Palestinians live. At issue is whether to wipe Israel off the map, that is what the Palestinians want, they could care less about the land, what they want most is for the Jews not to be there.

That's not the first time I link at occupation map. You dont want to understand, that's why terrorists take this as a pretext for the 9/11 attack, because USA is the only country which as some influence on Israel and does about nothing to oblige Israel to scarp off.

How are we supposed to influence the Israelis to agree to cease to exist, why don't you tell me that? Can I talk you French into giving up France, maybe dispersing all throughout the globe so that the French and the British can move into your homes? Do you see what I'm getting at. Your demands of what you think the Israelis should do are not reasonable, I would not ask that of you, so why should we ask that of the Israeli Jews?

bgut you say in effect that the Arabs are not, that we should not push democracy on them because Arabs are "unworthy of self-governance. (...) George Bush has had some good intentions for them
You shouldn't have pushed an unwanted democracy.

How do you know they don't want democracy unless you give them the vote?
And what about their children when they come of age to vote, if their parents have voted against democracy, they have just denied their children the opportunity to vote without their consent, and some of their children may have to die to overthrow the dictator so they can exercise their right to vote just like their parents did when they voted away democracy for them. I think it is not fair for people to vote away democracy and deprive their children of the right to vote that they just exercised.

It takes time to peoples with clanish traditions to get used to democratic processes. Many countries have the appearance of democracy, have vote, and once leaders have power, they abuse the populations with power, favour their own clans, that's a fact, not a racist point of view, as it is a fact that Hitler went to power thanks to peoples' vote.

Well you are making a group judgement on them that they should not be allowed the opportunity to choose their own government. Much of what I was saying previously was a sort of Devil's argument. The first assumption I made is that the liberals are right and the Iraq War was wrong, so with that assumption, I concluded that Arabs therefore don't deserve democracy, since giving them the vote is considered immoral, and that it was wrong to remove their dictator which has terrorized them for so long.

Democracy isn't a guaranty against dictatorship, say the contrary is just naive.

Actually it is either one or ther other, either the people choose their own government or someone else chooses it for them. So long as democracy is in force then their is no dictator, and once a dictator gets in power their is no democracy. The dictator can be voted in, but once he's a dictator their is no more voting, maybe staged voting like in Cuba for propaganda purposes, but nothing that really matters.

Democracy often follows welfare state. Hungry peoples don't care about democracy, they want to eat first and will follow any kind of a leader which promises food.

India is a democracy and alot of the people their go hungry.

but the liberal position is that its immoral to take down a dictator who is slaughtering his people, and that dictators are the only things Arabs are good for.
It's not a liberal position that set my opinion on Iraq, but the french intelligence services repports saying that if Saddam was toppled with a war, the situation in Iraq would become out of control. The Sunnis had weapons, the US administration gave weapons to the Kurds and the Shias, with as a result, an unavoidable civil war. The facts are more tenacious than your american dreams of worlwide democracy.

A lot of democracies are born of bloodshed, including your France. france did not get it right on the first try either. Maybe the French people would have been better off had they left their King in place. Surely it was not worth the death and bloodshed of all those French people to remove the King, have a reign of terror, a French Emperor a World War in the early 19th Century, the slaughter and freezing death of all those French troops in Russia, the reimposition of the French Monarchy, the rise of Napaleon III, Paris Commune Uprisings of Karl Marx and all that just to get to the 5th French Republic is it? France had a long and torturous path to democracy, so perhaps by your reasoning your people should not have tried and should have remained content to live under an absolute monarch.

Job hasn't been finished in Afghanistan, where Europeans are involved too. There, the money spent in Iraq would have been essential to make of this operation a succes, now we have 2 big problems to solve, not including Pakistan where north eastern provinces are out of control, while Iran and North Korea toughen attitude because of this all failure.

The World is a mess, no two ways about it, but when has it not been?

I think it is wrong to demonize George Bush as he has been demonized by the Press and in Europe
Bush demonized himself when going at war with lies on WMD,

All leaders lie, Even FDR, the US President that liberated France from German Occupation. FDR lied quite a bit, he promised to the American people that he would keep the United States out of World War II, while he fully intended to get the United States involved under some pretext, he even wrote Churchill letters to that effect while he was campaigning, that was a lie, are you complaining about that?

against 75% of the western Europe public opinion he didn't care of, and each time there have been a vote, the european leaders which allied Bush in opposition of each public opinion were punished.

Don't look at me, I don't understand the European's need to be anti American and defy us. The Europeans always seem happiest when our President is having some difficulty doing his job, they don't like to see the US President out their solving the World's problems successfully, so they give him some trouble. Is it any coincidence that Jimmy Carter was very popular in Europe but that he served only one 4-year term of office as President in the United States? Europeans like US Presidents that are failures, losers and wimps, except in the case of FDR when he was pulling your fat out of the fire.

That's well done!
Democracy is also the respect of the peoples' will.
It's quite insane from you to keep on a failing point of view on middle east politics when even Bush recognizes that the situation is really unpleasant and fires the main responsible for this failure.

There is democracy in the Middle East and their is democracy here, sometimes one works against the other, just like it does in France. Sometimes I think France wants to be the World's only democracy judging by the number of dictators it typically deals with that are trying to undermine it. Giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni didn't help the Carter Administration much either. The world would have been a much better place had the Shah managed to execute him before he foisted his Islamic Revolution on the World.

DonPanic · 2006-11-10 06:07:34

Any way the Jews have a greater claim to Israel than my ancestors had for settling here, at least the Jews can claim that they are returning to their ancient homeland, the one they were driven out of by the Roman
Empire.

Palestinians aren't responsible for the Romans and haven't have to pay the price for the Romans, neither they have to pay the price for the nazis. Palestinians have been home in Palestine for centuries. That's a drama for them to have been forced out too. Zionists in Europe tought they could settle in what they tought Palestine was to be some kind of a desert.

I think the Palestinians could stand to be a little more tollerant of cultural diversity. Their religion is after all an offshoot of Judaism just like Christianity

When the Jews were ousted from Spain after the reconquista, where were they welcame ? In muslims countries which tolerated Jews and Christians as, hooly Books religions. I'm sure you forgot that the biggest jew temples were in Egypt. In history Jews never suffered such harassment in arab lands as they suffered in Europe. That's why the Arabs now think that Israel betrays them.

You have just dehumanized the victims or random rocket attacks by Palestinians, you abstract them and call them occupiers. Don't you realize that most of them were probably born in Israel, just like I was born here in the United States.

The facts are that most of the colonists are newcomers in Israel, they are american french or ukrainian originated peoples which think tahat a bible is some kind of property bill on the palestinian territory.

If you pull back on that map so that Jordan and Lebanon also fall into view, then you get a better idea of where the Palestinians live.

I've been there, don't you pretend to give me a geography lesson on what I know and have seen by my own eyes.

The first assumption I made is that the liberals are right and the Iraq War was wrong, so with that assumption, I concluded that Arabs therefore don't deserve democracy, since giving them the vote is considered immoral, and that it was wrong to remove their dictator which has terrorized them for so long.

Just think about the way majority of protestants do prey for God, standing up.
Muslims prey in a complete submission attitude. To my eyes, this submission attitude is found in the population attitude for the muslims leaders which all try to find family links with the Prophet lineage.
I guess you never travelled in an arab country. One thing that hit me is that in many places, you can see a poster of all the arab countries' leaders whoever they are, be kings or presidents, Khadafi or Saddam Hussein were aside Hassan II or Gulf Emirs, all are respected by the average arab citizens. That seemed very strange to me.

France had a long and torturous path to democracy, so perhaps by your reasoning your people should not have tried and should have remained content to live under an absolute monarch.

All depends on men more than on institutions, monarchies can become parliamentary monarchies and be true democraties like GB, Holland, Danemark or Sweden as well as co-called republics can be dictatorial.

All leaders lie, Even FDR, the US President that liberated France from German Occupation. FDR lied quite a bit, he promised to the American people that he would keep the United States out of World War II, while he fully intended to get the United States involved under some pretext, he even wrote Churchill letters to that effect while he was campaigning, that was a lie, are you complaining about that?

I don't complain about being liberated from Nazi occupation, nevertheless, USA didn't went at war up to rescue France as they did in 1917, but because the Japs attacked USA, otherwise, France future woud have relied on the Red Army succes over Wermacht.
France was the best landing place way to Berlin, with an previsible population welcoming and cooperation against german troops.

The facts are that repports on the so-called WMD were deliberately falsified in order to make a case for a war at Iraq, even Colin Powell recognised it, FDR didn't simulate the Pearl Harbour attack, as far as I know.

Sometimes I think France wants to be the World's only democracy judging by the number of dictators it typically deals with that are trying to undermine it. Giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni didn't help the Carter Administration much either. The world would have been a much better place had the Shah managed to execute him before he foisted his Islamic Revolution on the World.

First, I'm not France, I just give my own personnal point of view,
Each country, USA too, favour the countries, be democracies or dictatures, that fit with its own geostrategical interests.
I think that the Shah's regime would have crashed anyways, just like "democratic" eastern Germany or Poland, if not Khomeini, some other leader would have risen.
It's not politic-fiction that leads the world affairs, as most of your daydreaming posts suggest.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-10 13:40:21

Any way the Jews have a greater claim to Israel than my ancestors had for settling here, at least the Jews can claim that they are returning to their ancient homeland, the one they were driven out of by the Roman
Empire.
Palestinians aren't responsible for the Romans and haven't have to pay the price for the Romans, neither they have to pay the price for the nazis. Palestinians have been home in Palestine for centuries. That's a drama for them to have been forced out too. Zionists in Europe tought they could settle in what they tought Palestine was to be some kind of a desert.

All I ask is that they recognize that the Jews have a right to be there too. There own Koran recognizes a Jewish god, and it contains books that describe the ancient Hebrews in the land of Israel, isn't it logical that they can both live in peace in the same place, the main thing preventing this is Palestinian violence toward Jews, all the associated oppression is because of Palestinian violent behavior. If the Palestinians stop, then the Israeli will stop too. The problem is the Palestinians don't stop, so the Israelis are forced to deal with them harshly in order to protect themselves from them. Am I making sense to you?

I think the Palestinians could stand to be a little more tollerant of cultural diversity. Their religion is after all an offshoot of Judaism just like Christianity
When the Jews were ousted from Spain after the reconquista, where were they welcame ? In muslims countries which tolerated Jews and Christians as, hooly Books religions.

That is history, but what I'm talking about is current events. The Spaniards have always been a pain in the ass, they are anti-American and they founded colonies in the New World that are anti-American. so what they do to Jews and their current Anti-Israeli tone doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure you forgot that the biggest jew temples were in Egypt. In history Jews never suffered such harassment in arab lands as they suffered in Europe. That's why the Arabs now think that Israel betrays them.

Forgetting about Exodus, Moses, and the Enslavement of the Jews to build those pyramids aren't you? Israel is not a large area, the Arabs live in a much larger area. I think it is safe to say, that most Arabs weren't displaced by Jews during the founding of Israel. I believe Jews have a right to live in the Middle East just as Muslims do, they have a historic right, and the sooner the Arab World learns to accept this the better. Do the Arabs really need every square inch of land, are they really as packed in and as overcrowded as that? I think not. By the way, hoe badly does the French want Andorria, or Montico, can they tollerate the existance of these small states on their border?

You have just dehumanized the victims or random rocket attacks by Palestinians, you abstract them and call them occupiers. Don't you realize that most of them were probably born in Israel, just like I was born here in the United States.
The facts are that most of the colonists are newcomers in Israel, they are american french or ukrainian originated peoples which think tahat a bible is some kind of property bill on the palestinian territory.

Most Israelis were not immigrants, most were born in the state of Israel, and they grew up speaking Hebrew, the founding of Israel was in 1948, a long time ago for a 20 year old. you are asking those people to go to countries that don't recognize them as citizens, and may not even speak the language, and I'll bet some of those Israelis had ancestors that came from France. Would you be willing to accept people from Israel that don't speak a word of French?

If you pull back on that map so that Jordan and Lebanon also fall into view, then you get a better idea of where the Palestinians live.
I've been there, don't you pretend to give me a geography lesson on what I know and have seen by my own eyes.

The first assumption I made is that the liberals are right and the Iraq War was wrong, so with that assumption, I concluded that Arabs therefore don't deserve democracy, since giving them the vote is considered immoral, and that it was wrong to remove their dictator which has terrorized them for so long.
Just think about the way majority of protestants do prey for God, standing up.
Muslims prey in a complete submission attitude. To my eyes, this submission attitude is found in the population attitude for the muslims leaders which all try to find family links with the Prophet lineage.

So in other words they are lackeys, or Uncle Tom's with a slave mentality. Don't see why they should complain about foreign occupiers if they don't wish to be free.
If our generals were to grow beards and put on turbans, would they like them any better?

I guess you never travelled in an arab country. One thing that hit me is that in many places, you can see a poster of all the arab countries' leaders whoever they are, be kings or presidents, Khadafi or Saddam Hussein were aside Hassan II or Gulf Emirs, all are respected by the average arab citizens. That seemed very strange to me.

Personality Cults, so annoying when people Drone on like that with their Slave Mentality to their leaders.

France had a long and torturous path to democracy, so perhaps by your reasoning your people should not have tried and should have remained content to live under an absolute monarch.
All depends on men more than on institutions, monarchies can become parliamentary monarchies and be true democraties like GB, Holland, Danemark or Sweden as well as co-called republics can be dictatorial.

I think the United States was lucky to have such a smooth transition to democracy.

All leaders lie, Even FDR, the US President that liberated France from German Occupation. FDR lied quite a bit, he promised to the American people that he would keep the United States out of World War II, while he fully intended to get the United States involved under some pretext, he even wrote Churchill letters to that effect while he was campaigning, that was a lie, are you complaining about that?
I don't complain about being liberated from Nazi occupation, nevertheless, USA didn't went at war up to rescue France as they did in 1917, but because the Japs attacked USA, otherwise, France future woud have relied on the Red Army succes over Wermacht.
France was the best landing place way to Berlin, with an previsible population welcoming and cooperation against german troops.

FDR clearly wanted to get involved in World War II, it was just that public opinion did not support it until after the Pearl Harbor attack, then he used his influence to get us involved in World War II also. Hitler helped out with his declariation of War, but they were just words. In a similar vein, George Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the war on terrorism provided a good excuse, just like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor provided an excuse to get involved in Europe, we had a "Europe First" approach to World War II, first we took care of Hitler and Germany and then we poured our resources into defeating Japan. Even though only the Japanese had physically attacked us.

The facts are that repports on the so-called WMD were deliberately falsified in order to make a case for a war at Iraq, even Colin Powell recognised it, FDR didn't simulate the Pearl Harbour attack, as far as I know.

Were you there physically looking over their shoulders? if not you are simply regurgitating propaganda from Michael Moor and MoveOn.org. Just because someone says something and you agree with it, doesn't make it true.

Sometimes I think France wants to be the World's only democracy judging by the number of dictators it typically deals with that are trying to undermine it. Giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni didn't help the Carter Administration much either. The world would have been a much better place had the Shah managed to execute him before he foisted his Islamic Revolution on the World.
First, I'm not France, I just give my own personnal point of view,
Each country, USA too, favour the countries, be democracies or dictatures, that fit with its own geostrategical interests.

The US typically favors dictators when the choice is that over an even worse dictator that threatens our interest, such was the case in the Korean War. if the choice is Ferdinand Marcos over a Soviet puppet state like Cuba, then I think we would favor a friendlier dictatorship, but what do you want? Let one dictator that threatens us take over a bunch on nonthreatening dictatorships and then elevate the menace to us? One of the reasons we liberated France was that we didn't want it to be part of Germany.

I think that the Shah's regime would have crashed anyways, just like "democratic" eastern Germany or Poland, if not Khomeini, some other leader would have risen.
It's not politic-fiction that leads the world affairs, as most of your daydreaming posts suggest.

I don't care about the Shah's regime, except that I liked it better than the so called "Revolutionary Iran". I don't like revolutions that bring on nothing but greater oppression than what existed before. If such is the case, then I'd favor the crushing of such revolutions and even the US helping the dictator to do that. If someone waves a Castro banner or a Che Gueverra flag, then I think its a safe bet that we don't what that revolution to happen, especially if the current leader is not bothering us.

DonPanic · 2006-11-11 10:15:15

All I ask is that they recognize that the Jews have a right to be there too. (...)
If the Palestinians stop, then the Israeli will stop too. The problem is the Palestinians don't stop, so the Israelis are forced to deal with them harshly in order to protect themselves from them. Am I making sense to you?

No, not untill Israel doesn't say that it will remove with a planified and respected calendar all its colonies settled by force on the palestinian territory as they did for Gaza as soon as all the palestinians parties will have recognised Israel. One shot at Israelis will give to Israel the right to delay the colonies removal. If not, the state of war is kept by Israel because the occupation is a state of war at the occupied people.
If you step on my foot for too long a moment, I've told you that's hurts me, you press louder, my right is to punch you off, as well as you have the right to fire at someone which intends to settle upon your property against your will
There is plenty of room in the Neguev desert to settle colonies, state of war is much more costful than desalinate water to have a flourishing desert.
As a martian colonisation supporter you should admit that terraforming the Neguev desert is much more a valuable expense than being at war at your neighbourhood.

Forgetting about Exodus, Moses, and the Enslavement of the Jews to build those pyramids aren't you?

Wah ! You're caught showing obvious historical, may be hysterical, ignorance
The Torah leaves the identity of this Pharaoh unstated, the pyramids were built about 2500 BC, and Moses is supposed to have leave Egypt about 1500 BC
The Jews weren't in Egypt when the Pyramids were built. They is not the slightest evidence of any jewish presence when ancient egyptians built great Pyramids.

In no ways ancient Egyptians would have let impure hands work on their sacred places, same for the middle-age cathedrals builders which would never had let a non christian work on churches' building.

Even wearing leather sandals was forbiden, because an average egyptian fellah could ever hope for his kid to become a clark if his kid's intelligence was noticed by a clergyman, and because impure jobs as butchery, whool weaving, leather working looked like impure, ancient Egyptians which were mainly farmers did abandon theses jobs to Hebrews or other nomad tribes which were mainly sheep breeders.

When the yearly river Nile inondation flooded over cultivated fields, there were hundreds thousand free hand egyptians fellahs ready to go to work on Pyramids as a religious duty, rewarded by meals and seeds bags, that was much more free hands than needed for the Pyramids building yards.

The Jews couln't have written a holly book without having an alphabet based on hierogliphyc origin which in not find in anyways in the hebrew alphabet , influenced by Hyksos civilisation.

Therefore what you write about the legend of jew slaves working on Pyramids is just a fake showing your obvious ignorance of Egytology

The other point is that nobody can be guilty for his so-called ancestors'acts committed more than four milleniums and a half ago, if you grief today's Palestinians or Arabs for some fantasmatic misbehaviour from ancient Egytians at the ancient Jews, either you are a mad guy, or you don't realize the stupidity of your arguments: if you want biblical arguments, guess to which country three jews nowadays called as Joseph, Mary and Jesus routed to shelter far from Herod's wrath ?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-12 02:49:38

Minister says French troops almost fired at Israel jets

French peacekeeping troops in Lebanon recently came within two seconds of firing missiles at Israeli fighter jets that approached as if to attack them, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti … wsid=58804
Speaking to the lower house of parliament on Wednesday night, she said this was the latest in a string of incidents in which Israeli warplanes had "adopted a hostile attitude" to French and German forces and added it was "not tolerable."

DonPanic · 2006-11-12 03:20:48

We'd like better that the Israelis won't renew on our troops such "regrettable mistakes" such as
Beit Hanoun "artillery mistake"
or
Israel's Attack on the USS Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/i … iberty.htm

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-12 11:14:17

All I ask is that they recognize that the Jews have a right to be there too. (...)
If the Palestinians stop, then the Israeli will stop too. The problem is the Palestinians don't stop, so the Israelis are forced to deal with them harshly in order to protect themselves from them. Am I making sense to you?
No, not untill Israel doesn't say that it will remove with a planified and respected calendar all its colonies settled by force on the palestinian territory as they did for Gaza as soon as all the palestinians parties will have recognised Israel.

How do you build a constituency for pulling out when the Palestinians keep on attacking when the Israelis start? The only thing the Israels see is the Palestinians keep on attacking and the Israelis have less territory. Even the French stopped attacking the Germans, when they began their pullout of France at the end or World War I. Apparently you feel that the Jews should get even worse treatment than the Germans who invaded your country, and that the Jews should pull out while under fire by the Palestinians. I wonder how far the Germans would have pulled out if French troops started firing on them as they did. How many Germans did your country shoot in the back as they were trying to leave your country? Also all of Israel can be considered a colony by your definition so basically you are saying that their can be peace if Israel ceases to exist, a nonstarter and an excuse for continued violence against Jews. Besides if you can argue that if Israel ceases to exist and their will be peace, and Israeli politiciant can just as easily argue for the Palestinians to cease to exist and their will be peace.

One shot at Israelis will give to Israel the right to delay the colonies removal.

The Palestinians hardly fired only one shot, they dug a tunnel into Israeli territory and took hostages, and fired rocket(s) - plural at Israeli villages. These ISraeli villagers got no warning for this, they thought that Israel was finally on the path to peace with these concessions, and they should be safe from the Gaza territory at least since the Palestinians got all of that, but no, the missiles flew anyway from Gaza. If no good deed goes unpunished, then why should they be followed by more good deeds? Would your country cede territory to Spain if Spain attacks you? What if it kept on attacking your country until France gave Spain all the territory it wanted, and the World condemned France for being an obstacle to peace by refusing to yield its territory?

If not, the state of war is kept by Israel because the occupation is a state of war at the occupied people.

They are deliberately attacking civilians, which would be a warcrime if those civilians weren't Jews according to the UN.

If you step on my foot for too long a moment, I've told you that's hurts me, you press louder, my right is to punch you off, as well as you have the right to fire at someone which intends to settle upon your property against your will

Did many French Partisans deliberately kill German civilian women and children in order to drive the Germans out of their country? Did they target many German Schools, did they position snipers out to shoot those little tots as they left the school grounds, murdering each one of them until Hitler decided to pull out his troops? That is the sort of thing that constitutes Palestinian "Resistance" as you term it. But you prefer to keep those innocent civilian victims off in the background and call them all "Colonists", even the infants, and the school children that the Palestinians deliberately kill. i don't know what else the Palestinians are targeting when they randomly fire missiles into Israel towns, they aren't doing a damn bit of good against Israeli tanks and airplanes, that's for sure. If you believe in waging war against the civilian population, then whats to prevent the Israelis from doing a similar thing deliberately rather than accidentally as they now do it when retaliating against terrorists?

There is plenty of room in the Neguev desert to settle colonies, state of war is much more costful than desalinate water to have a flourishing desert.
As a martian colonisation supporter you should admit that terraforming the Neguev desert is much more a valuable expense than being at war at your neighbourhood.

Forgetting about Exodus, Moses, and the Enslavement of the Jews to build those pyramids aren't you?
Wah ! You're caught showing obvious historical, may be hysterical, ignorance
The Torah leaves the identity of this Pharaoh unstated, the pyramids were built about 2500 BC, and Moses is supposed to have leave Egypt about 1500 BC
The Jews weren't in Egypt when the Pyramids were built. They is not the slightest evidence of any jewish presence when ancient egyptians built great Pyramids.
In no ways ancient Egyptians would have let impure hands work on their sacred places, same for the middle-age cathedrals builders which would never had let a non christian work on churches' building.
Even wearing leather sandals was forbiden, because an average egyptian fellah could ever hope for his kid to become a clark if his kid's intelligence was noticed by a clergyman, and because impure jobs as butchery, whool weaving, leather working looked like impure, ancient Egyptians which were mainly farmers did abandon theses jobs to Hebrews or other nomad tribes which were mainly sheep breeders.
When the yearly river Nile inondation flooded over cultivated fields, there were hundreds thousand free hand egyptians fellahs ready to go to work on Pyramids as a religious duty, rewarded by meals and seeds bags, that was much more free hands than needed for the Pyramids building yards.
The Jews couln't have written a holly book without having an alphabet based on hierogliphyc origin which in not find in anyways in the hebrew alphabet , influenced by Hyksos civilisation.
Therefore what you write about the legend of jew slaves working on Pyramids is just a fake showing your obvious ignorance of Egytology

In the bible it says the Pharoe's name was Ramses, which Ramses, it was I don't know. All I know is that the Jews have their own semihistorical records in the form of the Torah, and the Egyptians have theirs in Heiroglyphics. Just as you can't expect the Jews to be completely unbaised in their accounts, you can't expect the Egyptians to be unbaised for their part either. Do you think that if the Egyptians build their pyramids or whatever with the help of their Jewish slaves, that they would admit to it in their own historical accounts? I think not, if Jewish slaves were used, their part in the construction would have been unacknowledged and unappreciated as they were slaves after all, and would not have volunteered this labor if given a choice.

The other point is that nobody can be guilty for his so-called ancestors'acts committed more than four milleniums and a half ago, if you grief today's Palestinians or Arabs for some fantasmatic misbehaviour from ancient Egytians at the ancient Jews, either you are a mad guy, or you don't realize the stupidity of your arguments: if you want biblical arguments, guess to which country three jews nowadays called as Joseph, Mary and Jesus routed to shelter far from Herod's wrath ?

Good Point DonPanic, but that argument also applies to the ancestors of the Jews today who founded the Modern state of Israel. Past grievances committed against arabs 60 years ago, do not justify terrorist acts against Jews today, it is not old folks homes that the Palestinians are going after, they target school full of Jewish children who can't be blamed for the acts of their ancestors 60 years ago in the last century. I don't see why the present borders shouldn't be accepted as they are now, and that Palestinians shouldn't simply stop attacking civilians. Why to you insist on a return to the borders of 1948 or even earlier, and if earlier, should that mean reconstituing the British Empire? Do you want the British running the Middle East again? I think that would be nice, the Brits would get to take back Saudi Arabia, and Iraq once more, and the oil would flow freely and their would be no OPEC. Yes, I think it would be nice to reestablish the British Empire in the Middle East, what do you think?

DonPanic · 2006-11-12 11:44:18

In the bible it says the Pharoe's name was Ramses, which Ramses, it was I don't know.

Ramesses II (also known as Ramesses the Great and alternatively transcribed as Ramses and Rameses *Ria'mīsisu) was an Egyptian pharaoh of the Nineteenth dynasty. He was born ca. 1302 BC.
Pyramids were built about 2500 BC, no use to keep on your ignorant's arguing ! Jews could definitively NOT work on pyramids more than a millenium before and nowhere in the Bible nor Torah is mentionned any pharaoh, it's just always called "Pharaoh"

Anyways, Moses childhood's legend is a copy of Sargon II childhood story :

My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship

http://history-world.org/legend_of_sargon.htm

Buoyant baskets were traditionnal in Mesopotamia, Egyptians had no asphalt as in Mesopotamia to make a basket waterproof, Egyptians would have built a Nile reeds raft instead, so that the legend of baby Moses found in a basket by the Pharaoh's favorite then becoming Pharaoh's advisor is probably more pure fairy tale than a historic fact.
Same kind of historical fake with the Romolus and Remus grown up by a she-wolf legend; in latin, "lupa" she-wolf, also means prostitute, but it's so much less prestigious and fantastic if the two glorious roman twins could have been rose by a prostitute

Good Point DonPanic, but that argument also applies to the ancestors of the Jews today who founded the Modern state of Israel

My argument applies on th recent jew immigration in OCCUPIED TERRITORY COLONIES since 1967, which are illegal in regard of the international laws, don't you bring your Israel's fondators.

Whatever your says are, the isaraeli occupation of these territories is since 40 years the source of state of war

Anyways, I' a proud ennemy of the Evangelists !

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-13 08:52:36

In the bible it says the Pharoe's name was Ramses, which Ramses, it was I don't know.
Ramesses II (also known as Ramesses the Great and alternatively transcribed as Ramses and Rameses *Ria'mīsisu) was an Egyptian pharaoh of the Nineteenth dynasty. He was born ca. 1302 BC.
Pyramids were built about 2500 BC, no use to keep on your ignorant's arguing ! Jews could definitively NOT work on pyramids more than a millenium before and nowhere in the Bible nor Torah is mentionned any pharaoh, it's just always called "Pharaoh"
Anyways, Moses childhood's legend is a copy of Sargon II childhood story :
My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship
http://history-world.org/legend_of_sargon.htm
Buoyant baskets were traditionnal in Mesopotamia, Egyptians had no asphalt as in Mesopotamia to make a basket waterproof, Egyptians would have built a Nile reeds raft instead, so that the legend of baby Moses found in a basket by the Pharaoh's favorite then becoming Pharaoh's advisor is probably more pure fairy tale than a historic fact.
Same kind of historical fake with the Romolus and Remus grown up by a she-wolf legend; in latin, "lupa" she-wolf, also means prostitute, but it's so much less prestigious and fantastic if the two glorious roman twins could have been rose by a prostitute

So the ancient Romans went into the woods to go see a prostitute and got torn to pieces. How can the Romans be so dumb not to be able to tell the difference between these two things?

Good Point DonPanic, but that argument also applies to the ancestors of the Jews today who founded the Modern state of Israel
My argument applies on the recent jew immigration in OCCUPIED TERRITORY COLONIES since 1967, which are illegal in regard of the international laws, don't you bring your Israel's fondators.

1967 was the year I was born, and we haven't even walked on the Moon then, I wouldn't call that recent. How old are you anyway, 80?

Whatever your says are, the isaraeli occupation of these territories is since 40 years the source of state of war

Anyways, I' a proud ennemy of the Evangelists !

Your order of events is backwards.
First Israel didn't hold that territory when it was attacked.
Second, Israel took that territory as spoils of the war that the Arabs launched against it. Israel didn't ask for this war, and the War cost the Israelis dear, so it took the land as compesation for the war it was forced to fight defending itself against the attacking Arab states.

DonPanic · 2006-11-13 09:06:50

So the ancient Romans went into the woods to go see a prostitute and got torn to pieces. How can the Romans be so dumb not to be able to tell the difference between these two things?

I'm just telling you what can the differences between legend written years after facts and facts.
like an angry chick, you would say anything stupid just to hast the last word in a family dispute.

Your order of events is backwards.
First Israel didn't hold that territory when it was attacked.

That's what's called an occupied territory.
Everybody knows the price of peace is a palestinian state on these occupied territories.
As long as Israel occupy these territories, there will be a liberation conflict.
Your are just justifying an everlasting war

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-11-03 13:35:21

Re: Froggy's

#127 2006-11-04 01:09:31

Re: Froggy's

#128 2006-11-04 03:41:30

Re: Froggy's

#129 2006-11-04 09:25:11

Re: Froggy's

#130 2006-11-04 09:36:26

Re: Froggy's

#131 2006-11-05 11:19:52

Re: Froggy's

#132 2006-11-08 15:10:36

Re: Froggy's

#133 2006-11-09 00:25:11

Re: Froggy's

#134 2006-11-09 00:49:51

Re: Froggy's

#135 2006-11-09 05:10:43

Re: Froggy's

#136 2006-11-09 10:18:53

Re: Froggy's

#137 2006-11-09 10:27:31

Re: Froggy's

#138 2006-11-09 12:21:53

Re: Froggy's

#139 2006-11-09 13:12:47

Re: Froggy's

#140 2006-11-09 16:51:29

Re: Froggy's

#141 2006-11-09 18:57:01

Re: Froggy's

#142 2006-11-10 06:07:34

Re: Froggy's

#143 2006-11-10 13:40:21

Re: Froggy's

#144 2006-11-11 10:15:15

Re: Froggy's

#145 2006-11-12 02:49:38

Re: Froggy's

#146 2006-11-12 03:20:48

Re: Froggy's

#147 2006-11-12 11:14:17

Re: Froggy's

#148 2006-11-12 11:44:18

Re: Froggy's

#149 2006-11-13 08:52:36

Re: Froggy's

#150 2006-11-13 09:06:50

Re: Froggy's

Board footer