<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 41 - 44 of 44   <<Prev   1  2  3  
The Future of Europe, good / bad? Discuss: 2016-07-28 22:08:33


Belgian Gentleman
Level 57
Report
Get out
The Future of Europe, good / bad? Discuss: 2016-07-28 23:32:48


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
Also, you ignore the fact that about 75% of that "60%" does not have the weapons, nor strategical training to fight properly. They're psycho degenerates screaming Allah Ackbar and running into combat.

Three thirds of white people are radical Muslims? Did I miss a meeting or something?

They rarely even aim

Most non-modernly trained soldiers don't aim. It's instinctive not to want to kill folk, and the general hope is that if you fire enough shots in a general direction, the enemy will go away. American soldier trainers got around this by introducing targets that pop up, and encouraging solders to shoot them as quickly as possible. This got soldiers into the habit of shooting before thinking.

A part of a book on this:
There is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating humans' seemingly natural aversion to killing. Much of the research in this area has been conducted by the military; analysts have found that soldiers tend to intentionally fire over the enemy's head, or not to fire at all.

Studies of combat activity during the Napoleonic and Civil Wars revealed stirking statistics. Given the ability of the men, their proximity to the enemy, and the capacity of their weapons, the number of enemy soldiers hit should have been well over 50 percent, resulting in a killing rate of hundreds per minute. Instead, however, the hit rate was only one o two per minute. And a similar phenomenon occured during World War I: according to british Lieutenant George Roupell, the only way he could get his men to stop firing into the air was by drawing his sword, walking down the trench, "beating [them] on the backside and ... telling them to fire low".1 World War II fire rates were also remarkably low: historian and US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall rerported that, during battle, the firing rate was a mere 15 to 20 percent; in other words, out of every hundred men engaged in a firefight, only fifteen to twenty actually used their weapons. And in Vietnam, for every enemy soldiers killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired.2

What these studies have taught the miltiary is that in order to get soldiers to shoot to kill, to actively participate in violence, the soldiers must be sufficiencly desensitized to the act of killing. In other words, they have to learn not to feel -- and not to ffeel responsible -- for their actions. They must be taught to override their own conscience. yet these studies also demonstrate that even in the face of immediate danger, in situations of extreme violence, most people are averse to killing. In other words, as Marshall concludes, "the vast majority of combatants throughout history, at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy, have found themselves to be 'conscientious objectors'".3
The Future of Europe, good / bad? Discuss: 2016-07-29 00:06:36


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
My point is that they're is a difference between shooting everywhere and hoping it hits something as they do

Most folk did and still do it, especially not as well trained folk. They don't want to actually kill anyone or be killed, so shooting in a general direction is their best solution.

vs American tactics which may be defined chaotic compared to their training, but when compared to the Muslim's is as refined as a master swordsman from the 16th Century.

http://m.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0315/Afghanistan-war-How-Taliban-tactics-are-evolving
The Future of Europe, good / bad? Discuss: 2016-07-29 00:45:31


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
My grandfather served with the CIA in Afghanistan

Yes the Taliban. Are you going to try and say that they don't count or something?
Posts 41 - 44 of 44   <<Prev   1  2  3