Froggy's

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-14 09:31:01

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

Assuming of course that the Palestinians are everlasting.
For another example, what about the former Mexican territory we now hold, or for that matter what about the former French Territory we hold, the Lousiana territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. If could be assumed that Napoleon made the offer under some duress from Thomas Jefferson, he needed some money to fight his war in Europe, and it was either selling Louisana to the United States or having the United States just take it. I guess the Midwest can be called occupied territory, as can the Southwestern United States. we've received no fanatic attacks from the Mexicans lately. I figure the Palestinians can just settle down and accept their losses for their vicious bloody behavior and recognize that murdering innocent civilians is wrong and that the loss of some of their territory to the Israelis is justifiable recompense, they get over it. Israel has little land to offer them anyway, and not much oil. The Arabs have got the most valuable part of the Middle East, and Israel is not going to take it away from them if they leave Israel alone, they should be hapy with what they got, and if the Arabs really care about the Palestinians, then they should share the oil wealth rather than only using it to buy guns and bombs for them.

DonPanic · 2006-11-14 16:05:00

You are worst than the extremists zionists, that's all I can say with our deaf an blind war support. You'd better be logical with yourself, stop chatting and show some real courage by engaging yourself in the marines or in Tsahal

I'm really happy to see a majority of peoples voted against all you represent as violent politic thinking, hate and retaliations supporting, never minding of casualties.
You're giving the ugliest image of USA as can be

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-15 09:10:44

A woman was just killed in a Kasam Rocket attack on Israel. I guess the Palestinians didn't really know who it was they were trying to kill with their random rocket attacks. Was that woman really oppressing the Palestinians so much? Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis know who their targets are, they have a specific person they want to hit and a specific group of terrorists they want to go after. I don't see much symmetry between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do a people, that wantonly launches random rockets toward a general area simply to cause terror, deserve a nation? With each random terrorist attack, bombing, and kidnapping they are proving themselves increasingly unworthy. They can't win a military conflict with Israel, each Kasam rocket launching is nothing more that random murder, they murder civilians regardless of whether they are being oppressed by them or not. You don't want to see that because of your prejudice against Jews or against Americans and America's allies. I'm not the one who's extreme, I don't equivocate between a murderer and someone trying to degfend himself.

I believe lethal force is justifiable in self defence. You have yet to tell me how the Palestinians were defending themselves from that hapless woman, who's only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since the Palestinians can't hit any specific target with their rockets, then why do they launch them. I don't think the Palestinians are any safer from an Israeli retaliation because they killed that woman. Where has 40 years of terrorism gotten them? Gaza wa just an experiment, to see how the Palestinians would react if Israeli handed territory over to them, so far the results have been rocket attacks and kidnapping. I'm afraid the American people decided to give peace a chance when they voted in the Democrats, and because of their turning their backs on terrorism, the US will receive another terrorist attack like the one on 9/11. Congress will tie the government's hands so it can't get intelligence all in the name of privacy and civil rights of course, the US government won't be able to stop the attack and thousands of people will die, perhaps more that the total number of US soldiers that died in the Iraq War. The Media is to blame for this, because they tend to accentuate the negative, and eliminate the positive in all their reportings of George Bush, it is basically the Media's congress that got elected because of their control of war reporting coverage that gets to the American people, and so thousands and tens of thousands of Americans may die before they kick the bums out of Congress who would not protect them. This is a simular phenominon to the Omert election. Basically the purpose of the Gaza experiment was to show the true objective of the Palestinians to the World. Of course the worlds full of people like you, who reflexively hate Israeli Jews because they are allies of Americans, and that's why you call that Israeli woman and occupier, and you call her murder, "resistance".

One thing I do notice about left-wingers is their tendency to use euphanisms alot. Instead of using the word baby killing or abortion, they call it "choice". Instead of calling something a retreat, they call it a "phased withdrawal". I don't like people who use euphanisms, because I feel that they are being dishonest and that they are trying to deceive someone. Do you think if you call something a "phased withdrawal", that it is not a retreat? How stupid do you think I am? The purpose of language is to convey meaning, not to obscure it! People who butcher the English language to obscure their intentions are nothing but a bunch of moral cowards.

DonPanic · 2006-11-15 09:43:21

A woman was just killed in a Kasam Rocket attack on Israel. I guess the Palestinians didn't really know who it was they were trying to kill with their random rocket attacks. Was that woman really oppressing the Palestinians so much?

That's awful. I do condemn such acts.
Just notice that Israelis' retaliations are as wild for a civilian killed in Israel as for a a soldier killed in occupied territory.

You don't want to see that because of your prejudice against Jews or against Americans and America's allies.

False accusation, I did support Gulf war one, I support war at the talebans and at the terrorists. I don't support "great Israel" and the Israel "right" to occupy other peoples' land out of the internationaly recognized fronteers of Israel.
I have prejudices at warmoning behaviour.

One thing I do notice about left-wingers is their tendency to use euphanisms alot. Instead of using the word baby killing or abortion, they call it "choice". People who butcher the English language to obscure their intentions are nothing but a bunch of moral cowards.

Up to now, as long as it's not born, a human being has no legal existence, and a foetus is called a foetus, be by left wingers or not, it's the rightwing attitude to call a "baby" a foetus as an euphemism up to dictate to women as they should act, the bunch of moral cowards, as you say, applies on rightwingers too.
In this case, it's up to each woman to deal with her own moral and ethic, personnaly, I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm not in a woman's body, and I don't feel any right to tell her how she must behave.
I'm not a biologist, but I think that as long as a foetus hasn't an organised nervous system built, it cannot think, it cannot feel pain, and therefore cannot be a conscious being. Killing an inconcious being isn't killing a baby.

And you will notice that, as a foreigner, I take more care on my english than yourself. euphanisms doesn't exist in any english dictionnary, so much for the peoples which are supposed to butcher the english language.
Anyways, I don't intend to speak or write english like an englishman or like an US american, I know that my sentences are built as by a latin and french educated man. The main is to be understood by english speaking peoples.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 12:03:11

A woman was just killed in a Kasam Rocket attack on Israel. I guess the Palestinians didn't really know who it was they were trying to kill with their random rocket attacks. Was that woman really oppressing the Palestinians so much?
That's awful. I do condemn such acts.
Just notice that Israelis' retaliations are as wild for a civilian killed in Israel as for a a soldier killed in occupied territory.
You don't want to see that because of your prejudice against Jews or against Americans and America's allies.
False accusation, I did support Gulf war one, I support war at the talebans and at the terrorists. I don't support "great Israel" and the Israel "right" to occupy other peoples' land out of the internationaly recognized fronteers of Israel.
I have prejudices at warmoning behaviour.
One thing I do notice about left-wingers is their tendency to use euphanisms alot. Instead of using the word baby killing or abortion, they call it "choice". People who butcher the English language to obscure their intentions are nothing but a bunch of moral cowards.
Up to now, as long as it's not born, a human being has no legal existence, and a foetus is called a foetus, be by left wingers or not, it's the rightwing attitude to call a "baby" a foetus as an euphemism up to dictate to women as they should act, the bunch of moral cowards, as you say, applies on rightwingers too.
In this case, it's up to each woman to deal with her own moral and ethic, personnaly, I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm not in a woman's body, and I don't feel any right to tell her how she must behave.
I'm not a biologist, but I think that as long as a foetus hasn't an organised nervous system built, it cannot think, it cannot feel pain, and therefore cannot be a conscious being. Killing an inconcious being isn't killing a baby.
And you will notice that, as a foreigner, I take more care on my english than yourself. euphanisms doesn't exist in any english dictionnary, so much for the peoples which are supposed to butcher the english language.
Anyways, I don't intend to speak or write english like an englishman or like an US american, I know that my sentences are built as by a latin and french educated man. The main is to be understood by english speaking peoples.

Most of the mistakes I make are a result of fast typing and my fingers hitting the wrong keys. I type so much that I don't have time to check every single word anc check it for correct spelling. So long as I can communicate and get the point across I am happy. I don't think anyone can arbitrarily decide if a fetus is a person or not, just as you can't legally make the Sun and the planets go around the Earth through legislation.

DonPanic · 2006-11-16 15:04:18

Most of the mistakes I make are a result of fast typing and my fingers hitting the wrong keys. I type so much that I don't have time to check every single word anc check it for correct spelling.

Firefox has spell checker, but it's ok, let's say you're not responsible for what your fingers are doing

I don't think anyone can arbitrarily decide if a fetus is a person or not, just as you can't legally make the Sun and the planets go around the Earth through legislation.

A woman can interrupt her pregnancy,
Before we can stop planets orbiting motion...
Not legislation for the planets, just what is called Copernician revolution that said that it is the Earth which goes around the Sun, the sun apparent motion being due to earth rotation, you'd better get some slight astronomy update before you migrate to Mars...

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 18:21:35

Be nice if we could selectively repeal the law of gravity evey once in a while.

EuroLauncher · 2006-11-23 00:13:12

Personally I'd like to break the back of OPEC, I get tired of the world putting their petty religious concerns and their anti-Israel bias on the pedestal. I'd like to use alternate energy as an economic weapon to get even with those Arab states for all those terrible things they did to us. I'd like to dry up their revenue stream. My primary concern is not the availablity of fuel for my vehicle, but of where the money I buy it with is going. Money is fungible. The only way of drying up that revenue tream the arabs use to fund their religious Jihad is to produce an alternate fuel that uses an alternate infrastructure that Petroleum cannot make use of. Hydrogen fits that bill. If we drive cars that consume hydrogen, then their will be less demand for oil and OPEC's revenue stream will dry up, then it will be a matter of what the OPEC nations can actually produce with their own labor rather than the amount of oil they can pump out of the ground.

Pact signed to build fusion reactor
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/ … 6-sun.html

DonPanic · 2006-11-27 09:00:22

Lauching the Neurospin
The world most advanced brain study facility.
http://www.meteoreservice.com/neurospin/
http://www-dsv.cea.fr/content/cea_eng/d … mmaire.htm

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-08 11:59:18

So how is Sarkozy and his support for space exploration

X · 2007-05-09 20:44:49

^Good question. I doubt the answer exists in a language other than French though so someone should get cracking on finding out.

noosfractal · 2007-05-09 21:17:38

So how is Sarkozy and his support for space exploration

The only thing I could find in English was this Nature article ...

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/ … 6847a.html

What are your priorities for space?

M. Sarkozy: The Galileo project has become bogged down in national quarrels that are petty compared with the stakes on the table, and breaking the current deadlock is a matter of urgency.

I'm keen on greater European cooperation in space. France should be ready to make the extra effort to lead the way, if needs be, as it has done in the past. The main goal must be to maintain and reinforce our basic civil, military and scientific skills. If, after that, we can together develop more ambitious manned flight and planetary-exploration missions, then why not?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-11-28 06:11:19

French Rioters Begin Shooting At Police
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7cba17 … 67843f4fe6
The former rock throwers and car burners have armed themselves with hunting shotguns and turned them on the police.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-29 17:36:39

French Rioters Begin Shooting At Police
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7cba17 … 67843f4fe6
The former rock throwers and car burners have armed themselves with hunting shotguns and turned them on the police.

Show them the door. Send in the Army kick em back over to North Africa and the Middle East if they have to. If these rioters want an Islamic Republic its not going to be in France! Muslims don't mix well with other cultures, France ought to enact legislation that recognizes this. If people cause trouble, kick them out, restrict immigration from that part of the world from which they come from. We certainly don't need more terrorists running around loose in Europe.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-11-30 11:23:08

Le Paris flambé
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/d … d=10225005

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-12-01 10:02:50

Sarkozy should declare marshall law for the affected area, have French Troops patrol the streets and if fired on, they fire right back with deadly force, if the immigrants don't like this, they can leave. France can do without their troubles, and if they can't find jobs here, perhaps they can get jobs as hoodlums for the Sudanese.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-11-14 09:31:01

Re: Froggy's

#152 2006-11-14 16:05:00

Re: Froggy's

#153 2006-11-15 09:10:44

Re: Froggy's

#154 2006-11-15 09:43:21

Re: Froggy's

#155 2006-11-16 12:03:11

Re: Froggy's

#156 2006-11-16 15:04:18

Re: Froggy's

#157 2006-11-16 18:21:35

Re: Froggy's

#158 2006-11-23 00:13:12

Re: Froggy's

#159 2006-11-27 09:00:22

Re: Froggy's

#160 2007-05-08 11:59:18

Re: Froggy's

#161 2007-05-09 20:44:49

Re: Froggy's

#162 2007-05-09 21:17:38

Re: Froggy's

#163 2007-11-28 06:11:19

Re: Froggy's

#164 2007-11-29 17:36:39

Re: Froggy's

#165 2007-11-30 11:23:08

Re: Froggy's

#166 2007-12-01 10:02:50

Re: Froggy's

Board footer