FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > Political Discussions, 2003-2007
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-28-2005, 08:12 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fort Lauderale, FL
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Incorrect. Rock throwers can threaten tanks. Sure, a rock can't hurt a tank, but if the rocks make the tankers keep their heads down they might miss the real attack.
Wow, this is so stupid it's hard to know where to start.

1) If the rocks make them keep their heads down they (the rock throwers) are PROTECTING them (the Israeli tankers) from a more serious threat.

2) [ sarcasm ] Since the rock throwers are a diversion, the best thing to do is to pay attention to them and kill them, much better than say, being extra alert for OTHER REAL threats in the area. [ /sarcasm ]

You have reached too far by a long shot Loren.

ETA: the parentheticals in 1)
Llyricist is offline  
Old 01-28-2005, 08:28 PM   #82
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llyricist
Wow, this is so stupid it's hard to know where to start.

1) If the rocks make them keep their heads down they (the rock throwers) are PROTECTING them (the Israeli tankers) from a more serious threat.

2) [ sarcasm ] Since the rock throwers are a diversion, the best thing to do is to pay attention to them and kill them, much better than say, being extra alert for OTHER REAL threats in the area. [ /sarcasm ]

You have reached too far by a long shot Loren.

ETA: the parentheticals in 1)
None of you seem to get it.

Rock throwers pose a real threat by restricting their ability to look around for the guys with the real weapons.

I'm not saying the rock throwers should be shot out of hand, but if something happens I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy.

Note, also, that they are likely in the line of fire if a tanker engages a real target.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 01-28-2005, 09:28 PM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fort Lauderale, FL
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
None of you seem to get it.
No, we get it just fine. You are grasping at straws, it's plain to see for anyone.

To think, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment over in that other thread about sexual disease.
Llyricist is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 12:01 AM   #84
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
None of you seem to get it.

Rock throwers pose a real threat by restricting their ability to look around for the guys with the real weapons.

The next most dangerous thing is the phalanx of crippled old ladies.

Hatpins, you know...
rlogan is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 02:44 AM   #85
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 703
Default

Loren:
Quote:
Thus things which harm infantry but not tanks *ARE* a danger to tanks. Not because of the direct harm but because they keep the real attackers from being discovered.
Ahh, I understand.

I guess that it is POSSIBLE that a child throwing a rock could be a distraction, and thus a potential indirect danger. Still, that doesn't justify the tank drivers shooting him.

I could use that excuse to shoot anything which could be a distraction. Oh, a guy's waving at me. What a distraction, I guess I'd better blast his head off.
mountain_hare is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 08:58 AM   #86
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_hare
Loren:


Ahh, I understand.

I guess that it is POSSIBLE that a child throwing a rock could be a distraction, and thus a potential indirect danger. Still, that doesn't justify the tank drivers shooting him.

I could use that excuse to shoot anything which could be a distraction. Oh, a guy's waving at me. What a distraction, I guess I'd better blast his head off.
"Distraction" is really too mild a word. The point of rock-throwing is to strip the tanks of their infantry by making them take cover. This leaves them awfully vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. In an urban environment, pure armor is very vulnerable to opposing infantry.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 11:11 AM   #87
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middletown, CT
Posts: 7,333
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Incorrect. Rock throwers can threaten tanks. Sure, a rock can't hurt a tank, but if the rocks make the tankers keep their heads down they might miss the real attack.
This is exactly the same logic we saw from Bill O'Reilly about protesters here. He told us that protesters at the RNC were terrorists, because by keeping the police occupied they were making it easier for a real threat to get by. Beautiful logic.

-B
Bumble Bee Tuna is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 02:51 PM   #88
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
"Distraction" is really too mild a word. The point of rock-throwing is to strip the tanks of their infantry by making them take cover. This leaves them awfully vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. In an urban environment, pure armor is very vulnerable to opposing infantry.
A key feature of any hall of fame candidate is relentless dedication to the absurd.
rlogan is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 03:11 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
"Distraction" is really too mild a word. The point of rock-throwing is to strip the tanks of their infantry by making them take cover. This leaves them awfully vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. In an urban environment, pure armor is very vulnerable to opposing infantry.
How many anti-tank weapons would the rock throwers happen to have in their possession? Considering that their main means of attack is rock-throwing, I would say few if any.

Also, if they want to keep the infantry protected how about giving them large riot-shields to deflect said rocks? They do have riot shields over there, don't they?
Enigma is offline  
Old 01-29-2005, 03:34 PM   #90
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter
No problem there. The ultra-orthodox jews are sexist, often racist, and their culture is flawed. They do respect the sanctity of life (in most cases), and that is a plus. Also, in the US, most do not seek to impose their ways on others. But in Israel, they are a bunch of sanctimonious religious zealots, as bad as any fundamentalist sexist redneck in the US.
This is very frank and honest of you, Alter. I tip my hat to you.

And in like fashion, I can say that the Islamic fundamentalists are narrowminded, anti-intellectual, sexist, homophobic, often xenophobic, and downright dangerous. Some of them are only extreme about their own behavior, but they're a minority. The majority want to enforce their standards on other Muslims.

But the fundamentalists aren't the ordinary Palestinians. No more than I believe the right-wing orthodox Jews are the majority opinion in Israel.

Are we any closer to an understanding?
Sauron is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.