Quote:
Originally Posted by akula
So let's return to the old methods hey?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by akula
So let's return to the old methods hey?
There are arguments either way but to add to Tombie's rhetorical question the old ways caused much more civilian death. For example the way carpet bombing was utilised in Vietnam and massive ordinance was used from the air via the waves of bombers in WW2 - lots of non stop low accuracy high explosive. Visit Dresden for example and you can still see signs of it. London, Manchester (where my father, aunt, and grandparents were terrorised often night after night... Even with false starts with air raid sirens going off most nights even if the bombers chose a different city) Dresden, Berlin. Many more casualties under the old methods and just as much terror (or more when residents see friends and neighbours often killed every night, Anti_aircraft guns parked at the end of every Street, watching your city being slowly levelled). Some people think terror is either a recent phenomenon or only comes with tech. It is not.
Cheers
They are one of the reasons the Taliban can survive in northerrn Pakistan because drone attacks, often on community gatherings such as weddings and funerals, have turned the population against the West, including us, and against the government of Pakistan, and radicalised young men who want to fight to defend their people, so they join the Taliban who are now retaking parts of Afghanistan including Tarin Kowt, the region where Aussie forces were based.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...er-anniversary
Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
I agree with you that compared to an invasion much, much less loss of life using drones. This doesnt mean drones are a good idea/useful.
Analogy... not on collateral casualties but on benefits of their use for enforcing...
A Shop is losing a significant amount due to a lot of shop lifting offences.
They fit roof mounted cameras - eye in the sky so to speak..
Shop lifting offences reduce.
But some 'harder' people continue to steal products from the shop.
So... (stay with me here) - they arm the cameras with high accuracy taser and put a protocol in place that confirms an offence before reaction.
Then, if someone is confirmed to be committing an offence they are shot with a taser, hit the floor and are immediately arrested.
I'd suggest that would reduce the offences....
Enjoyed Eye in the Sky. Worth watching for Rickman's last lines alone.
Would a real military officer in Helen H's role display as much emotion? (Think also of M's constant interruption during the first chase scene in Bond's Skyfall).
Nicholas Monsarrat, a Frigate Captain during WW2, wrote that as Captain his commands even in the most intense circumstances need to be clear and calm. If panic/stress/urgency/emtion in his voice caused a rating to hurry and thereby make a mistake the fault would be the Captain's not the rating.
On drones: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs[/ame]
It was one of the movies I watched on the plane over here... Fairly full on!! If they really do have that technology where they can fly a thing that looks like a blow fly into a house for a look around, then its a scary world we live in!!! The other I watched was 'Extremely loud and incredibly close' with Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock.. That put a lump in my throat!!
I would certainly never go near such a store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppabillytea
Why? I know you're an honest sort. So why would you give it a miss?
What if it was selling fantastic LR parts at silly discounts [emoji12]
For fear of being the victim of an honest mistake, or an over zealous security person, or one that thought it might be fun to light up my freckle? :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie