RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (Full Version)

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



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 1:36:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly.

So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion?


Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?
Because you're the one that brought cowardice into play. I'm just asking you to clarify. If the operators of drones...who are removed from the action...are cowards, then do you hold that same standard to our commander in chief?




I'm not clear what you're driving at, CD. My point is about how certain ways of fighting are seen by the people who are doing the fighting (or who are under attack). You opened this (sub-) debate by saying 'I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that.' Clearly, you see these tactics as cowardly.

But, equally, you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?




Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 2:32:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?

Be that as it may, is there a reason why we should view them that way?

K.





mnottertail -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 2:39:06 PM)

There was a great hue and cry from some here about drones, it isn't like Peon is the only one. But I don't think anyone should see them as other than deadly.




PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:02:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?

Be that as it may, is there a reason why we should view them that way?

K.




It goes to the point about what's seen as 'honourable warfare' by each side and what's seen as repugnant and 'inhuman'. That last is the key word. Clearly, there's an asymmetry here. We here in the west tend to be revolted by the sorts things that CD mentions - broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps. It's difficult *not* to be revolted by such things. This smacks of rage, to a sometimes insane degree.

On the other hand, I think we could understand that drone attacks are seen by those who are attacked by them as 'reason and efficiency, taken to the point of inhumanity'. From what I understand, the feeling amongst those who live under the fear of these drones is that those who are behind the attacks don't think of them in terms of 'enemies', so much as 'vermin to be eliminated in the most efficient way technology can afford'. That is, they think that those who use the drones see them as subhuman. Or 'inhuman'.




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:13:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?

Be that as it may, is there a reason why we should view them that way?

K.




It goes to the point about what's seen as 'honourable warfare' by each side and what's seen as repugnant and 'inhuman'. That last is the key word. Clearly, there's an asymmetry here. We here in the west tend to be revolted by the sorts things that CD mentions - broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps. It's difficult *not* to be revolted by such things. This smacks of rage, to a sometimes insane degree.

On the other hand, I think we could understand that drone attacks are seen by those who are attacked by them as 'reason and efficiency, taken to the point of inhumanity'. From what I understand, the feeling amongst those who live under the fear of these drones is that those who are behind the attacks don't think of them in terms of 'enemies', so much as 'vermin to be eliminated in the most efficient way technology can afford'. That is, they think that those who use the drones see them as subhuman. Or 'inhuman'.


Maybe we should have to go back to ancient warfare where every man has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out with swords, would that be honorable enough for you, of course China but it would be honorable. Do you think it is honorable to deliberately increase your casualties because it is unfair to use your technological advantage? You want to be the one writing all those letters and telling their wives and parents that you let their husbands and sons die because you felt using your technological advantage wasn't honorable enough for you?




PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:30:02 PM)

quote:

Maybe we should have to go back to ancient warfare where every man has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out with swords, would that be honorable enough for you, of course China but it would be honorable. Do you think it is honorable to deliberately increase your casualties because it is unfair to use your technological advantage? You want to be the one writing all those letters and telling their wives and parents that you let their husbands and sons die because you felt using your technological advantage wasn't honorable enough for you?


As I've been trying, though evidently failing, to convey, Bama, it isn't about me. My idea of 'honourable warfare' doesn't matter. It's all pretty repugnant to me, in one way or another. However, I'm not attacking, or being attacked, by either drone operators or Islamic militants or terrorists of any kind. What I'm highlighting, though, is, I think, one of the root problems of these conflicts and why they continue. Each side thinks the other acts in an 'inhuman' way. That needs to be dealt with, I think.




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:36:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Maybe we should have to go back to ancient warfare where every man has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out with swords, would that be honorable enough for you, of course China but it would be honorable. Do you think it is honorable to deliberately increase your casualties because it is unfair to use your technological advantage? You want to be the one writing all those letters and telling their wives and parents that you let their husbands and sons die because you felt using your technological advantage wasn't honorable enough for you?


As I've been trying, though evidently failing, to convey, Bama, it isn't about me. My idea of 'honourable warfare' doesn't matter. It's all pretty repugnant to me, in one way or another. However, I'm not attacking, or being attacked, by either drone operators or Islamic militants or terrorists of any kind. What I'm highlighting, though, is, I think, one of the root problems of these conflicts and why they continue. Each side thinks the other acts in an 'inhuman' way. That needs to be dealt with, I think.

Maybe a little kum ba yah before battle will help.
Let you in on a secret. Nobody ever assumes the people they are killing are good decent honorable people.




Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:49:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?



Is it because he obfuscates ? [;)]
No...actually, it's because peon obfuscates. Diverts. Makes a derogatory comment but when asked about another similar example, avoids answering.



Like you dont. [8|]




PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 3:57:41 PM)

quote:

Maybe a little kum ba yah before battle will help.
Let you in on a secret. Nobody ever assumes the people they are killing are good decent honorable people.


Maybe you're right, at that, Bama.

Instant memories of singing 'kum by yah' around the camp fire when I was a boy scout. Good days. [;)]




CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 4:17:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly.

So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion?


Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?
Because you're the one that brought cowardice into play. I'm just asking you to clarify. If the operators of drones...who are removed from the action...are cowards, then do you hold that same standard to our commander in chief?




I'm not clear what you're driving at, CD. My point is about how certain ways of fighting are seen by the people who are doing the fighting (or who are under attack). You opened this (sub-) debate by saying 'I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that.' Clearly, you see these tactics as cowardly.

But, equally, you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?
Actually peon, my bigger point was PS's insistence that gunshot wounds fit under his source's list of superflous injuries. So I brought the list of illegal items cited by his source. While the use of the items by the Jihadists is cowardly...in my opinion...my main point was they're illegal. Guns are not unless they use, spespecifically, ammunition that fits under the illegal category.

What I was driving at with my question to you was that your comment seemed to indicate that you, along with these unnamed others, see drone operators as cowardly. I'm asking for clarification. Either you do or you do not. And if you fo, then I assume you see the President in the same way.




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 4:28:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I don't. I see two different kinds of what I know different people will see as cowardly.

So, if Obama or any other president sends troops into action...such as sending the SEAL team into action against Bin Laden...from a place where he is safe from harm...like the operators of the drones...he's a coward in your opinion?


Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?
Because you're the one that brought cowardice into play. I'm just asking you to clarify. If the operators of drones...who are removed from the action...are cowards, then do you hold that same standard to our commander in chief?




I'm not clear what you're driving at, CD. My point is about how certain ways of fighting are seen by the people who are doing the fighting (or who are under attack). You opened this (sub-) debate by saying 'I do notice that weapons that use projectiles such as broken glass, anti-personnel mines and booby traps are illegal. Someone may want to tell those brave jihadist terrorists that.' Clearly, you see these tactics as cowardly.

But, equally, you must know that, for instance, drone attacks are seen as cowardly by those who are attacked by them? No?
Actually peon, my bigger point was PS's insistence that gunshot wounds fit under his source's list of superflous injuries. So I brought the list of illegal items cited by his source. While the use of the items by the Jihadists is cowardly...in my opinion...my main point was they're illegal. Guns are not unless they use, spespecifically, ammunition that fits under the illegal category.

What I was driving at with my question to you was that your comment seemed to indicate that you, along with these unnamed others, see drone operators as cowardly. I'm asking for clarification. Either you do or you do not. And if you fo, then I assume you see the President in the same way.


This is what I call the CA style of debate, you use some people say or maybe to preface what you want to say. That way if called on it you can hide behind the fact that you were only pointing out a point of view that exists or a possibility but not the speakers responsibility.




PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 4:31:43 PM)

quote:

What I was driving at with my question to you was that your comment seemed to indicate that you, along with these unnamed others, see drone operators as cowardly. I'm asking for clarification. Either you do or you do not. And if you fo, then I assume you see the President in the same way.


I honestly do give up with these things, CD. And I still don't see why it matters to you and why you have this burning need for clarification on the matter of my own feelings, irrelevant in the scheme of things as they are. I'm pretty certain that those who get attacked by drones see those behind them as cowardly and inhuman. For the drone operators, no doubt, neither 'bravery' nor 'cowardice' come into it: they're just performing a kind of 'cleaning job'. Just as is the President. All I can say is I find it all pretty bloody loathsome. I hate aggression disguised as efficiency, right up to the top, just as much as I hate insane rage on the other side.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 4:32:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Why is my view on what is or is not cowardly relevant to you?



Is it because he obfuscates ? [;)]
No...actually, it's because peon obfuscates. Diverts. Makes a derogatory comment but when asked about another similar example, avoids answering.



Like you dont. [8|]

Not in this case, no. And unlike you on a couple of threads, I don't simply ignore questions or comments.





kdsub -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 5:34:58 PM)

quote:

Each side thinks the other acts in an 'inhuman' way. That needs to be dealt with, I think.


The way it should be dealt with now and has been successfully in the past is the same...Fight to win by any means at hand... or... don't fight at all. We did that in the big wars...then came Korea... Vietnam...and the Middle Eastern wars where we tried to fight with one hand behind our backs because of world opinion. It does not work.

NOW... any war we are involved in should be fought all out...AND... any country that aids our enemies should suffer the same fate. There would be no such thing as insurgency or guerrilla warfare without material support from an industrial country... OR... do not start the fight in the first place.

Butch




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 5:40:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Each side thinks the other acts in an 'inhuman' way. That needs to be dealt with, I think.


The way it should be dealt with now and has been successfully in the past is the same...Fight to win by any means at hand... or... don't fight at all. We did that in the big wars...then came Korea... Vietnam...and the Middle Eastern wars where we tried to fight with one hand behind our backs because of world opinion. It does not work.

NOW... any war we are involved in should be fought all out...AND... any country that aids our enemies should suffer the same fate. There would be no such thing as insurgency or guerrilla warfare without material support from an industrial country... OR... do not start the fight in the first place.

Butch

And people do not realize that by dragging it out this half-ass way of fighting a war makes sure there is no end to the fighting.




kdsub -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 5:57:30 PM)

Bama if we had fought to win and told Iran...Russia...Pakistan...or any other country supplying weapons, explosives, training, and sanctuary to our enemies we would consider a state of war with them and meant it... This would all have been over by 12/11 of 2001.

If, we as a nation, were not willing to fight to win then we should have kept our boys and girls at home and petitioned the UN to waist our time and try to save face... We did neither and are suffering the results.

Real wars cannot be fought worrying about if tanks and anti-aircraft guns are hidden next to hospitals and mosques

Butch




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 6:00:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama if we had fought to win and told Iran...Russia...Pakistan...or any other country supplying weapons, explosives, training, and sanctuary to our enemies we would consider a state of war with them and meant it... This would all have been over by 12/11 of 2001.

If, we as a nation, were not willing to fight to win then we should have kept our boys and girls at home and petitioned the UN to waist our time and try to save face... We did neither and are suffering the results.

Real wars cannot be fought worrying about if tanks and anti-aircraft guns are hidden next to hospitals and mosques

Butch

I have been saying this since 68




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 6:17:18 PM)

Didn't this thread start out about some new ammo and get derailed because someone thought that the ball ammo the military uses is more lethal than the hollow points allowed for hunters and civilians?




PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 6:53:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Didn't this thread start out about some new ammo and get derailed because someone thought that the ball ammo the military uses is more lethal than the hollow points allowed for hunters and civilians?


It did, but then at some point it stopped being simple. Ron put it in the wrong forum for it to stay simple, unfortunately.




BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/27/2015 7:01:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Didn't this thread start out about some new ammo and get derailed because someone thought that the ball ammo the military uses is more lethal than the hollow points allowed for hunters and civilians?


It did, but then at some point it stopped being simple. Ron put it in the wrong forum for it to stay simple, unfortunately.


Strange since steel jacketed ball ammo is much less lethal to the intended target than straight lead or hollow points while being more dangerous for those down range. This is do to the fact that steel jacketed ball ammo has much more penetration than the others.
Only a person who knows little about guns and ammo would argue against that.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02