WWI Passchendale...
Whenever I see pics from back then it always reminds me of the song "No Man's Land" by Eric Bogle...
We got a copy of a newspaper clipping a few years ago from one of my father's second or third cousins over in Ireland... It was a story about another distant relative (my father's third or fourth cousin or something) who had gone to Europe and tracked down the gravesite of her (grandfather? great-uncle? something like that..) that died in WWI. I'd have to dig up the article again to check, but I think it was somewhere in that same general area.
It took A LOT of artillery to do all that damage.
There was a small town in Poland that was heavily bombarded by Germans in WWII. Not because of strategic importance. Not because of Resistance or Reds stationing nearby. Not because of vengeance.
They targeted it because it looked like a square dartboard from above.
I'll try to find some details after I get me some sleep. The town is still standing btw.
Those pictures reminded me of something else:
There was a small town in Poland that was heavily bombarded by Germans in WWII. Not because of strategic importance. Not because of Resistance or Reds stationing nearby. Not because of vengeance.
They targeted it because it looked like a square dartboard from above.
I'll try to find some details after I get me some sleep. The town is still standing btw.
I never heard of that.
I would definately be interested in hearing more...
That was pretty neat... I actually was expecting an airial photo but just not this in specific.
Those pictures reminded me of something else:
There was a small town in Poland that was heavily bombarded by Germans in WWII. Not because of strategic importance. Not because of Resistance or Reds stationing nearby. Not because of vengeance.
They targeted it because it looked like a square dartboard from above.
I'll try to find some details after I get me some sleep. The town is still standing btw.
I never heard of that.
I would definately be interested in hearing more...
Yeah, me too. Sounds like an interesting story.
Good lord, all they had to do was warn the poor citizens and tell them to leave. They could have had their range and spared some lives. Alas, such was not how WWII was fought from any side.
And trust that the civilians would not inform the enemy, who could scramble fighters and shoot down your bombers, or position POW's in the city? Kind of the same reasoning used to justify not telling the Japanese where the Bombs where gonna come down at and giving them a chance to evacuate.
Good lord, all they had to do was warn the poor citizens and tell them to leave. They could have had their range and spared some lives. Alas, such was not how WWII was fought from any side.
And trust that the civilians would not inform the enemy, who could scramble fighters and shoot down your bombers, or position POW's in the city? Kind of the same reasoning used to justify not telling the Japanese where the Bombs where gonna come down at and giving them a chance to evacuate.
Um... TA...
Time period is WWI... there really are no "bombers", and the "fighters" would rather duel each other...
The devestation you see is 99% artillery... which was used in quantity and often by both sides.
Also, military communications were rather bad/primitive at this time, and the militaries could hardly communicate with their own units in a timely manner, let alone warn civilians... and said civilians could warn the enemy of the incoming attack.
TA (and ZB before him) were referring to the bombing of Frampol, which was WWII.
Oh!
My bad...
Not to mention this was total war, so in their eyes the civilians were enemy.
/cough Yeah, cause we really make a effort to not kill civilians now.
Well, officially at least. Though substituting platoons of soldiers with small fire teams was a step in that direction.
ORC_Chaos
Not to mention this was total war, so in their eyes the civilians were enemy.
/cough Yeah, cause we really make a effort to not kill civilians now.
We do.
Well, at least the US does.
So much so that it actually helps the enemy.
Could that 1 trillion dollars have been used in such a way that it killed way more civilians? Could we have removed the same number of combatants alot faster with less loss of life on our side for way less money if we did not care about killing civilians?
The COC says I cannot argue aginst such... 'simple' assertations in the way that feels most appropriate but wasting logic responding to such a self-contradicting nonpoint seems, well, a waste.
Could that 1 trillion dollars have been used in such a way that it killed way more civilians? Could we have removed the same number of combatants alot faster with less loss of life on our side for way less money if we did not care about killing civilians?
The COC says I cannot argue aginst such... 'simple' assertations in the way that feels most appropriate but wasting logic responding to such a self-contradicting nonpoint seems, well, a waste.
Not attacking Iraq and staying in Afghanistan would have saved the lives and the money.
AH! A tazer killed someone! Too dangerous!
Especially when you consider that police officers over use them. This is why we are having big reforms on Tazers up here. I guess we just care about our citizens. Such a weird country. No wonder we have so little deaths caused by weapons.
AH! Someone died in a car crash! Evil car companies care nothing about our saftey!
Especially when you consider that police officers over use them. This is why we are having big reforms on Tazers up here. I guess we just care about our citizens. Such a weird country. No wonder we have so little deaths caused by weapons.
Look! A Canadian killed someone! Canadians have no respect for life and take no steps to avoid civilian casualties!
They don't even protect their own citizens from their military personel!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11591...
Conspiracies are more Iqwinn's domain. I'll let you two talk it over.
Yeah, and kinda quoting facts that are kind of relevant to the conversation in some way and then spouting off a poorly thought out and wide sweeping moral statment about "group x" is yours.
If you cannot put in more reasoned thought into your discourse with me than yelling 'your mama wears combat boots' then I see no reason why I should put more rationality into my own responses.
Put more thought into what I say
Then say things that make sense in context.
And putting stuff ... in ... context is yours.
Thank you.
Put more thought into what I say
Then say things that make sense in context.
They are dude. Learn to expend your mind. Learn to unwrap you mind so it can wrap around unsual objects. Its pretty cool.
/pass badly rolled "cigarette" that smells weird
Is that what happened? Did you expend your mind?
Anywho, explain how "no war would mean less casualties" somehow proves your point that modern militaries do not make any effort to reduce civilian cassualties in war. It is a side point only tangentally related to the position under discussion. It is like you lack the ability to actually make a point and then discuss it. As soon as any point you make comes under question you randomly jump ship and switch gears. Talking to you is less like having a conversation and more like reading the results of a google search top to bottom.
Also:And putting stuff ... in ... context is yours.
Thank you.
Thats kind ... dude.
Your welcome.
Not to mention this was total war, so in their eyes the civilians were enemy.
/cough Yeah, cause we really make a effort to not kill civilians now.
We do.
Well, at least the US does.
So much so that it actually helps the enemy.
I'm glad they do. It's a small redeeming feature of the whole US war machine that they still try to reduce innocent casualties, even if it puts their own people at risk.
why are we arguing fellas 
It's kinda... lame.
TA is talking about the difference between "expend" (to use something to the point of it no longer being usable) and "expand" (to increase the size of)
It's kinda... lame.
yeah I got that part. normally that would be amusing but goldo doesn't natively speak english so thats kinda mean spirited
TA is talking about the difference between "expend" (to use something to the point of it no longer being usable) and "expand" (to increase the size of)
It's kinda... lame.
yeah I got that part. normally that would be amusing but goldo doesn't natively speak english so thats kinda mean spirited
As mean sprirted as spouting off ridiculous and poorly thought out remarks in order to get a negative reaction?
TA is talking about the difference between "expend" (to use something to the point of it no longer being usable) and "expand" (to increase the size of)
It's kinda... lame.
yeah I got that part. normally that would be amusing but goldo doesn't natively speak english so thats kinda mean spirited
As mean sprirted as spouting off ridiculous and poorly thought out remarks in order to get a negative reaction?
more so. he can't help doing either :/ thats like hitting a dog for barking and not speaking english
he can't help doing either
The grammar/speaking stuff doesn't bother me, I understand that English is not everyones first language.
But the spouting off of ridiculous and poorly thought out remarks in order to get a negative reaction is called trolling.
And if he can't help himself, then I suggest seeking professional help.
he can't help doing either
The grammar/speaking stuff doesn't bother me, I understand that English is not everyones first language.
But the spouting off of ridiculous and poorly thought out remarks in order to get a negative reaction is called trolling.
And if he can't help himself, then I suggest seeking professional help.
its only trolling if someone reacts Mr. Robin don't let him get to you D:
I'm at work right now... I've gotta get some work done....
I'm at work right now... I've gotta get some work done....
Kay! good luck!
Is that what happened? Did you expend your mind?
What are you talking about, man? I have so much trouble following you when you are TUI.
Acronomically challenged here.
Well I take for granted that war will create casualties. Casualties that wouldn't happen if a bomb didn't fall on people's houses for example. I know it a revolutionnary thought: War=Death /head esplode
And you fail to see how that makes no sense, zero. I asked you why apples are green and you respond by telling me if they did not exist they would not be green. It is completly beside the point and utterly ridiculous to call it a conversation.
I am only responding to RH's misguided comments. But apparently you like debate for him. Strange.
No, you are responding to RH's logically consistent statment as to the ideaology upon which current military doctrine currently resides with mindless drivel that consists of nothing more than a logical failing and a refusal to understand it. I have made no attempt to defend RH, I have made every reasonable attempt and much more to get you to realize that you fail thought. Why do you even try if you cannot be bothered to make an attempt at making sense?
And you fail to see how that makes no sense, zero. I asked you why apples are green and you respond by telling me if they did not exist they would not be green. It is completly beside the point and utterly ridiculous to call it a conversation.
I think he's using the axiom of "False implies True", which, while an actual law of logic, is extremely useless in nearly all situations.
And you fail to see how that makes no sense, zero. I asked you why apples are green and you respond by telling me if they did not exist they would not be green. It is completly beside the point and utterly ridiculous to call it a conversation.
I think he's using the axiom of "False implies True", which, while an actual law of logic, is extremely useless in nearly all situations.
would you like a burrito?
No, I'm having sushi tonight.
you still need lunch buddy D:
Wishing someone dead because that person might possibly be thinking something other people you don't actually know disagree with... that's kinda going too far.
(Yes, that's what "These people should die because some of them oppose our way of life because my government tells me so" boils down to when you abstract it)
Wishing someone dead because that person might possibly be thinking something other people you don't actually know disagree with... that's kinda going too far.
I don't wish people dead. However, I do wish that the GoP, AFA, NOM, NARTH, most Tea Party candidates, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists, ah hell, most "traditional" religions in the friggin' world to avoid itemizing them all, and so-on, pretty much any group or person that puts "family values" in their mission statement, would just stop being so terribly concerned about my personal affairs. Until they stop actively wishing me harm, however, I'm afraid I don't have much choice. Because whatever an individual of said groups might feel, they work towards goals that don't give me much room to exist.
That is to say... yes, large groups can be enemies. Because even if they aren't uniform in thought and judgement, if they, as a group, are working towards goals that would harm you, it doesn't matter if an individual has moral qualms, they're still working against you.
If you consider all members of the catholic church your enemy, you are only making matters worse. You should fight the concept, not the members. Because you can never defeat an idea by killing all people who believe in that idea.
You should consider the concept of "(my) family values" an enemy, and you should only seek to destroy that train of thought, not the people having it. Because if you destroy the people having it, there'll just be more to take over from them. Especially if you do it violently, because that tends the "well... maybe he was on to something since a gay man killed him! That must mean that gays are dangerous!" effect.
I understand that violence might sometimes be the last option, but to actively seek to kill everyone who is a member of a large group of people that have some opposing ideals is generally a bad idea. Unless membership of the group involves "Actively seeking to murder gay people", you shouldn't consider every member of the group someone who "actively seeks to murder gay people" because they may very well have joined for different reasons and not agree with those in charge.
Just to use one of your examples here. Same goes for terrorist groups. A cell actively planning to bomb innocents? Kill all of them. A large group of people that mainly seek to fight the influence of American values on their lives? A lot of them might not even want to hurt anyone really, and just joined up because some soldiers considered the entire group their enemy and by that reasoning shot their brother because he was giving food to his old friend who happened to be opposed to soldiers invading his country but never picked up a gun in his live and "OMG ALL SOLDIERS MUST DIE!!!1".
/hyperbole.
Actually most of them aren't, and by branding them enemies you'll only convince them to start working against you. "The Catholic Chuch" might be against gays for example, but many of its members aren't.
Yes, funny how I said the Catholic Church and not Catholics.
And lay off all the death and destruction, as I've never advocated killing people for their beliefs, and the insinuation that I have is quite dishonest.
Time difference buddy. It's 4 in the afternoon here. I already had lunch two hours ago.
haha ohhh my bad
Actually most of them aren't, and by branding them enemies you'll only convince them to start working against you. "The Catholic Chuch" might be against gays for example, but many of its members aren't.
Yes, funny how I said the Catholic Church and not Catholics.
And lay off all the death and destruction, as I've never advocated killing people for their beliefs, and the insinuation that I have is quite dishonest.
Sorry about the death and destruction, I tend to overstate things.
Anyway. That distinction exactly. Consider terrorism to be your enemy, not everybody whom you've (probably wrongly) labeled as one.
You cannot fight the church by forcing people to stop following it, and you cannot fight terrorism by killing all the terrorists. You cannot defeat an idea with violence.
Just because I acknowledge that a group has labeled me their enemy and reciprocated does not mean that I wish violent harm on them.
I'm afraid I'm not going to accept your apology, on account of you doing the same thing immediately afterwards.
Just because I acknowledge that a group has labeled me their enemy and reciprocated does not mean that I wish violent harm on them.
Plushy refuses to recognize any definition of the word 'enemy' that means anything other than actively trying to kill.
No, you are responding to RH's logically consistent statment as to the ideaology upon which current military doctrine currently resides with mindless drivel that consists of nothing more than a logical failing and a refusal to understand it. I have made no attempt to defend RH, I have made every reasonable attempt and much more to get you to realize that you fail thought. Why do you even try if you cannot be bothered to make an attempt at making sense?
That is to say... yes, large groups can be enemies. Because even if they aren't uniform in thought and judgement, if they, as a group, are working towards goals that would harm you, it doesn't matter if an individual has moral qualms, they're still working against you.
I'm also hoping you're not attaching any value to my words considering this is the interwebz and I have a troll as an avatar
I'm not thinking about this for hours before formulating a post or anything, I'm just spewing thoughts and I tend to be harsh.and I tend to be harsh.
And wrong.
I'm also hoping you're not attaching any value to my words considering this is the interwebz and I have a troll as an avatar
Have no fear, your words are without value to me.