I was trying to say something controversial about Kashmir in Urdu, but a web translator isn't very accurate I guess.m3thod wrote:
not really..Indians have taken our Kashmir?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Indians apna Kashmir hameshaay gaa.m3thod wrote:
i so am my guatemala gang banger friend.
Does that make any sense?
gaa = where has it gone / goneKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I was trying to say something controversial about Kashmir in Urdu, but a web translator isn't very accurate I guess.m3thod wrote:
not really..Indians have taken our Kashmir?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Indians apna Kashmir hameshaay gaa.
Does that make any sense?
apna = ours
Indian = Hindoos j/k
Kashmir = Kashmir
hameshaay = no idea
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Yep..ATG wrote:
And look like a historically ignorant ass in the process!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
Marion is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers.
Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de RochambeauFrancis Marion was one of the influences for the main character in the movie The Patriot. In the film, the fictional character Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) describes violence he committed in the French and Indian war.
François Joseph Paul de Grasse
The Battle of the Chesapeake, also known as the Battle of the Virginia Capes or simply the Battle of the Capes, was a crucial naval battle in the American Revolutionary War which took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on September 5, 1781, between a British fleet led by Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Graves and a French fleet led by Rear-Admiral the Comte de Grasse. It was, in strategic terms, a major defeat for the Royal Navy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm over France. I actually like the new guy.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Sorrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy, naming 3 or 4 Frenchmen is without a doubt GENRERALIZING, and that just simply will not do. Also, like I said, the French navy wouldn't have evn engaged in any naval battles IF the colonies had not PROVED it was capable of winning the war. The French ONLY joined the war to be there for the big FU to Great Britain....Kmarion wrote:
Yep..ATG wrote:
And look like a historically ignorant ass in the process!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_MarionMarion is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers.Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de RochambeauFrancis Marion was one of the influences for the main character in the movie The Patriot. In the film, the fictional character Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) describes violence he committed in the French and Indian war.
François Joseph Paul de GrasseThe Battle of the Chesapeake, also known as the Battle of the Virginia Capes or simply the Battle of the Capes, was a crucial naval battle in the American Revolutionary War which took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on September 5, 1781, between a British fleet led by Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Graves and a French fleet led by Rear-Admiral the Comte de Grasse. It was, in strategic terms, a major defeat for the Royal Navy.
Lowing naming specific people, is not generalizing. Do you even know the definition of the word?lowing wrote:
Sorrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy, naming 3 or 4 Frenchmen is without a doubt GENRERALIZING, and that just simply will not do. Also, like I said, the French navy wouldn't have evn engaged in any naval battles IF the colonies had not PROVED it was capable of winning the war. The French ONLY joined the war to be there for the big FU to Great Britain....
And the French joining just because it was proven you could win it is ridiculous. With one statement you say they lose all the time and are known for surrender but with another you say they only join a battle cause it's winnable.
Napoleon certainly won a number of battles. What happened to the generals who stopped him?
Like, say, Lord Admiral Nelson. Was he treated like a hero, or just someone who happened to be in the right place at the right time to see France's inevitable defeat?
Do you know what the Arc de Triomphe is?
Uhhhhhhhh, when you use 3 or 4 specific people to prove the actions of an entire nation, when the entire nation is the topic, yeah that is generalizing the actions of the majority with the actions of a few........Sound familiar? Yeah I thought it might.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Lowing naming specific people, is not generalizing. Do you even know the definition of the word?lowing wrote:
Sorrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy, naming 3 or 4 Frenchmen is without a doubt GENRERALIZING, and that just simply will not do. Also, like I said, the French navy wouldn't have evn engaged in any naval battles IF the colonies had not PROVED it was capable of winning the war. The French ONLY joined the war to be there for the big FU to Great Britain....
And the French joining just because it was proven you could win it is ridiculous. With one statement you say they lose all the time and are known for surrender but with another you say they only join a battle cause it's winnable.
Napoleon certainly won a number of battles. What happened to the generals who stopped him?
Like, say, Lord Admiral Nelson. Was he treated like a hero, or just someone who happened to be in the right place at the right time to see France's inevitable defeat?
Do you know what the Arc de Triomphe is?
Yeah they only joined the battle because it was winnable BY SOMEONE ELSE.
Kerry would've got a piece of fast-flying rice in his eye and skipped out on 30% of his work. And awarded himself the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Poseidon wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Turns out Bush was by far the better option...
Kerry would've sucked. Bad. But not nearly as much as Bush has for these past 8 years.
2004 election = total shit.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-14 00:05:38)