Boomerdog

And you know this how?

Are you talking about the movie or the book written in 1983 by Andrew Hodges? Both movies incorporate artistic license which sufficient comment has been madehere and any more would be in effect piling on. So did Andrew Hodges, a Senior Research Fellow and Tutor in Mathematics at Wadham College get it wrong when he wrote the book in 1983? My point that you have seemed to miss (but will deny you missed so it's useless to "go there" any further ) is that the BASIC facts less all the embellishment, myth and artistic license have a ring of truth about the nature of war, it is first planned and intelligence IS a factor in that planning and then it is executed with deadly force. I'll refer you back to General Sherman's quote I referenced and both movies bare such basic fact out.

I understand you are insulted and horrified by the graphics as we all are. However, I do hope you would keep somewhere in the fore front of your mind that one of these days, it could be you or me if we don't take harsh measures now.

That.

Obama's SOTU speech is nothing more than a thin patina of flowery perfumed verbiage covering a Mount Everest of bullshit.

I'll give "The Guardian" and "The Daily Telegraph" about as much credibility as you probably give Breitbart or Fox news. So you came out of combat operations in much better shape? This season, the two movies, "American Sniper" and the "Imitation Game" are bookends to each other. War is first fought in the mind and ends at the tip of the spear. It's dirty ugly business or as General Sherman once said, "War is hell and you can't refine it." You sleep well at night because whether you like it or not, there are those out there who will do violence on your behalf to protect you against barbarians. Please make sure that out of respect to those who allow you to sleep well, you get your full eight hours. And lastly, those who have come back from combat don't ask that you fawn all over them but don't spit in their face either. Do that and you'll probably need some plastic surgery.

By attack do you mean a verbal attack or torching a city in whole or in part? I have to agree with you on the fact that some words in the lexicon are clearly scorched earth attack words designed to silence one's opposition. Then there are words that by their very nature definition and cultural context, are constructively critical. The wisdom of course is knowing the difference between the two and these days, both sides don't have it right. Bottom line, there's no Constitutional provision from anyone of us being offended. I get offended by a lot of things every day. Doesn't give me the right to go busting windows or torching buildings.

So, Group 'A' sucks but Groups 'B' and 'C' suck a little bit less (or maybe a bit more IYHO). The common denominator is that all three still suck. To use any two to placate the remaining one is something that with all due respect makes little sense to me. But you're right about Sharpton and violence. When those two NYPD officers were assassinated, that was one of the fastest back peddles I ever saw. Something like the arsonist who torches the building then offers to help extinguish the fire once the FD arrives. BTW. I can't stand Savage and Limbaugh I take with a grain (one grain mind you) of salt.

I beg to differ. He's a verbal bomb thrower who in the opinion of many, has been the catalyst for several acts of violence as well as false police reporting...Tawana Brawley comes to mind and OBTW, Tawana Brawley IS paying off the lawsuit she lost to the man she accused. What's Sharpton doing to help Tawana? I doubt he's doing anything. In times where the challenges and issues need serious engagement and cooler heads to prevail, Sharpton is napalm with a nitroglycerin trigger.

Unequivocally yes for the United States. It is not only protocol but customs, courtesies and standards of conduct to remain at attention and salute the flag and the national anthem of an ally when the ally is present in a joint ceremony. Hope this helps, but I don't know the protocols of other countries.

Hollywood may lean Left and be happy with the POTUS currently in office, but they'll brook no crap from Sharpton. They'll just take him aside into a quiet room, show him some stuff they got on him that could put him in Club Fed and then tell him to shut his mouth, get his ass on a airplane back to NYC and don't even think about coming back. Problem solved.

+1

Well I'll be, you've reduced a bit of my pessimism...not all of it. Whether the "paradigm" is changed; we'll see.

Care to fill us in on the details that created such complexities? The conclusive way to test the efficacy of such a tactic is to have a no notice exercise where a perp with a toy cap gun and dressed up scary bad crashes through the classroom door of sixth graders. Maybe eight graders? Whatever. The kids will of course get traumatized over the test, tell their parents and all hell's gonna break loose with the school and the school district. Is it possible that a bunch of grade schoolers locked and loaded with food cans to throw at and gain some temporary advantage to egress? The armed perp already has the advantage of the initial shock effect of the engagement? Possible yes; probable no! And now this "tactic" of fighting back with cans of food is now out there for all (even the perps) to see. The school principal will then direct all unused "weapons" to be donated to a food bank. if they're going to go through with this come hell or high water, perhaps they ought to buy a bunch of hard rubber hockey pucks to throw at the armed intruder. Once again, a feel good overture that denies the reality of the magnitude of a very violent situation and for the reason cited above, training is not going to occur. Kinda reminds me of one of Murphy's Laws of Combat: "Professional Soldiers are predictable but the world is full of amateurs."

yea...this one pancakes in. If Breyer, Ginsburg, and Breyer, and Hagan are asking these types of questions, it ain't looking good for the US's case. Was there any mention that the "offender" had a legitimate medical prescription for the meds? NOTE: They gave this case to an Assistant Solicitor General. It does not appear the Solicitor General wanted to go near this one.

Perhaps nothing. The object of terrorism is terror. Many targets have purpose but random terror is just as effective and sometimes, creates a greater impact.

I am writing in the broadest sense simply because it's true. With all due respect, you site other crimes against minorities as some immoral equivalence. The difference is such violent actions in this country constitute a serious crime where the offenders would be both vigorously pursued, arrested and vigorously prosecuted as they should. The actions of terrorists on behalf of replacing one government of their objection for another of their preference whether you or I like it or not is altogether a different set of constructs. Small minority of Muslims? Please don't be fooled by the numbers. By etimates, there are 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide. Now here are the numbers if a "small percentage" of Muslims are radicalized, hate the West and want to kill all the Infidels AKA you and me and Mr. quade to name a few. 10% radicalized - 120 million 1% radicalized - 12 million 0.1% radicalized - 1.2 million Small percentage yes. Small numbers...hardly.

I think normiss was referring to speech NOT the action.

Well then why don't you enlighten us with your sage wisdom? The view of the world in this context (if you were to step back and think about it just a little) is the issue of self defense and what does one do if armed and confronted. It's a combination of opinion and venting. Like I asked another one of your confederates; is this NOT the purpose of this forum? But here's the fundamental issue. YOU are now a target and unlike the Cold War where targets were cities, military bases and people were "collateral damage," this one is a little more personal. YOU and the rest of us are hated and deserve death just because you are who you are...a non believer who doesn't buy in to their level of reality. For 22 years of military service, there was a target on my back. I volunteered, NO ONE forced my signature on the dotted line. But whether you like it or not; I'll repeat YOU are also a target and you have no choice in the matter. All your reasoning and thinking and kevetching isn't going to do you or anyone in the same position any good as a tango slits your throat in front of a GoPro....it's a little to late for that. "...those people will never understand..." Those people understand better than you think. Playing hockey with a croquet mentality will only result in getting your head handed to you. It will also bring harm to the other hockey players. My advise to you (and I highly doubt you'll listen) is this. If you're going to hold the opinions and views you've chosen and are certainly entitled to hold, stay at the croquet field and DON'T come to the rink...even to watch.

Oh really? Well that's kinda why we have this forum as some sort of verbal free for all, venting,....whatever. One of the blessings or curses (depending on your particular point of view) of the Internet is some degree of anonymity. Putting it another way, ya never really do know who you're talking to. There are some parts of everyone's life around here that will just stay private because we either don't wish to talk about it or just can't talk about for reasons...well let's just leave it at that. Thus, the same level of ignorance would apply if those "keyboard commandos" you chide were to refer to you and your crowd as a bunch of "pussy cheese eating surrender monkeys."

Bullshit! You don't know that anymore than anyone of us here and if you (think) you do, backup the argument with details.

Your assessment is 100% correct. The probability of living through such an engagement is low but the calculus of the battle will change by applying deadly counterforce. In essence, your approach confirms two theories of war. 1)From Sun-Tzu, fighting on "death ground;" a situation where you will die if you don't fight and you may die if you do but may also increase your chances of survival. 2) From Karl von Clausewitz, introducing both "fog and friction" to the enemy, altering their plan or as they say, no war plan survives first contact with the enemy. The tangos might not have planned to any counter surprise...they now have to adapt to a plan they did not consider in the first place. Or to put it simply, if you're gonna die anyway, might as well take some of the bastards with you.

Have you observed any armed Christians on your door step? Remember in your part of the world (in spite of recent SCOTUS decisions) Christians packing on your doorstep you should report immediately to your local LEO's!!!!!! Have any Christians on your doorstep thumped you upside the head with their Bibles? That of course would be assault and a creative prosecutor might be able to turn that one into an ADW case. If they're on your doorstep pestering you, then perhaps they are more of an irritation to you. They should leave. In all truth, I don't like Christians on my doorstep pestering me either...truly! But I think there is a difference between an irritant and a threat.

To some extent. Right now Christianity is having a pretty hard time co-existing with Western Civilization. Islam is just one more on the list so to speak.

Geez...it worked for Einstein, Fermi, Feynman, von Neumann et.al We also got to the Moon with it! LOL too but I thought I'd throw that in.