RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks

RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/11/2014 7:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser They let people kill you from further away. That is their goal. That is the reason for their design. Like gunpowder. Or bows and arrows. Isn't gunpowder an inert chemical compound on its own? Drones are really not inert things. If you wanted to say firearms, even rifles, now there we might have more meat to chew upon, considering how a drone is armed. As for bows and arrows...well, let's look at the aforementioned armament. Hellfire anti-armour missile. Flint tip. 5.59 mile range. Half mile range with dubious accuracy. Nine kilos of high explosives. Wiggly shaft. Comparing something that might collapse a lung to something that can obliterate a house seems just a touch arbitrary, unless your point is that the theory of ranged weaponry is more significant than its actual result. That's quite a ridiculous stretch. Don't use a drone, it sits there, inert. And it's not like we use gunpowder for raising crops otherwise. But if your panties are more comfortable going with bow and arrows, because they have pointy things, let's do that.

thompsonx -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/11/2014 9:44:43 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Defining a "defense contractor" to a "terrorist" isn't exactly right. If the individual manufacturing an ied is a terrorist why isn't a war toy manufacturer?

mnottertail -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/11/2014 9:47:52 AM)
Gunpowder is not inert on its own. By definition it is not inert. It is a volatile pyrotechnic. You could render it inert by a thorough mixing with sand, but boy that sieving is not a process I would ever be involved in.

Politesub53 -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/11/2014 3:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Defining a "defense contractor" to a "terrorist" isn't exactly right. If the individual manufacturing an ied is a terrorist why isn't a war toy manufacturer? I hate the term defense contractor, whats wrong with a good old fashioned mercenary ?

RemoteUser -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/12/2014 6:33:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Gunpowder is not inert on its own. By definition it is not inert. It is a volatile pyrotechnic. You could render it inert by a thorough mixing with sand, but boy that sieving is not a process I would ever be involved in. Same idea as liquid nitroglycerin, granted, but the amount used for a single bullet on its own still won't match a fully armed drone. I was going on the premise that gunpowder by itself is not a potent weapon in miniscule amounts; or, if you prefer, throwing a bullet doesn't cause half the hell that a firing pin does when launching said bullet at a speed of thousands of feet per second.

RemoteUser -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/12/2014 6:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's quite a ridiculous stretch. Don't use a drone, it sits there, inert. And it's not like we use gunpowder for raising crops otherwise. But if your panties are more comfortable going with bow and arrows, because they have pointy things, let's do that. Stop asking me about my panties - I told you, I put them in the mail to you three days ago. You did answer my question, though, however inferentially, so thanks. You want pure theory over actuality. It makes my future replies to you much easier to phrase.

RemoteUser -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/12/2014 7:02:19 PM)
Re: joether Ok, I get that you like the premise of drones. I'm not saying I have an issue with nonmilitary ones. I'm saying I have an issue with their utilization by said military. Some things should not be made easy for convenience, and I count war among those things. Maybe you could tell me why you think they are appropriate? I've never had a problem with technology. Now, how that technology is applied, that's a whole other ball of wax. Setting up technology to, of its own accord, make a life and death judgement on a human, without any human involvement beyond the initial creation of said technology, would very much bother me. Are you ok with that premise? We're actually quite close on our definition of terrorism using the first example. "Especially for political purposes" doesn't mean "solely for political purposes". [:)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/13/2014 9:11:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Defining a "defense contractor" to a "terrorist" isn't exactly right. If the individual manufacturing an ied is a terrorist why isn't a war toy manufacturer? I hate the term defense contractor, whats wrong with a good old fashioned mercenary ? It hurts some people's sensibilities, as a merc might be interpreted to be an assassin. But, if the shoe fits...

Musicmystery -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/14/2014 7:17:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's quite a ridiculous stretch. Don't use a drone, it sits there, inert. And it's not like we use gunpowder for raising crops otherwise. But if your panties are more comfortable going with bow and arrows, because they have pointy things, let's do that. Stop asking me about my panties - I told you, I put them in the mail to you three days ago. You did answer my question, though, however inferentially, so thanks. You want pure theory over actuality. It makes my future replies to you much easier to phrase. The whole thread is theory. The drone thing is a done deal. It's not going back in the box.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875