Here's a far better example, which actually happened. Korean War: British report: Situation's a bit dicey. US response: situation's okay. Sometime later a Senior British Officer turns up SBO: Dicey? Have you acted upon this immediately, as the language told you to??? US: ???? This situation ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I'm surprised that someone talking about communication in war wouldn't use this very recorded incident involving two nations speaking the same language but using it in different ways.
consider the difficulty in achieving true understanding of signifiers and contexts when dealing with people with shared backgrounds, cultures, and world views... then multiply it by a thousand years of deviant adaptation (deviant in the true sense of the word rather than a negative reference). Then put it all on the table of tasks for your intelligence analyst, strategic planner, battalion, brigade, or division commander and ask yourself, have you done enough to truly understand what is going on right now? How much more do you need to do so you can predict what will happen tomorrow? Next week? Next year?
Wait, so it's ok to kill innocent unarmed people during a drone strike but not when you storm a house? Double standards. Or is the reason that only when being immediately faced with the emotion of killing an unarmed man face to face that you realize how cowardly you acted?
+Bob Rijke Well I'm saying he says it's crucial to have a good translator to avoid collateral damage which doesn't make any sense if the very war you fight is a big bowl of bullcrap and results in the deaths of tens thousands of civilians. That's pretty useful "too" the debate.
that comment would have been a more useful comment then the one before. that some actions have not been positive to the war effort however his talk was about useful communication and translation not about how to fight the war the right or wrong way.
It's a logical error. Why talk about the specifics of a war when the war is wrong in the first place. If I make a cake out of dog shit, do you really think it matters if I decorate it with chocolate or not?
+B20C0 Comparing war to baking is a weak analogy, regardless of dog shit, because you have the choice to make that cake. Few soldiers in wars hardly ever choose to be in them for the sake of it, so their best option is to complete their mission in the best way possible.
are you actually in Peace in your life... living this world of such bizzare manipulation.... good god man.... are you happy for the day son your life.... your role in the world?????? MY GOD.......
The ends do not justify the means. The officer wanted to build trust not threaten them. Great talk!
Awesome talk! I hope one day to attend the USMA.
Very interesting talk!
Very Interesting topic and well delivered! Truly enjoyed it and learned something new!
Here's a far better example, which actually happened.
Korean War:
British report: Situation's a bit dicey.
US response: situation's okay.
Sometime later a Senior British Officer turns up
SBO: Dicey? Have you acted upon this immediately, as the language told you to???
US: ????
This situation ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
I'm surprised that someone talking about communication in war wouldn't use this very recorded incident involving two nations speaking the same language but using it in different ways.
you are surprised that someone talking about history does not suggest the example you know?????? what kind of illiteracy this is?
consider the difficulty in achieving true understanding of signifiers and contexts when dealing with people with shared backgrounds, cultures, and world views... then multiply it by a thousand years of deviant adaptation (deviant in the true sense of the word rather than a negative reference). Then put it all on the table of tasks for your intelligence analyst, strategic planner, battalion, brigade, or division commander and ask yourself, have you done enough to truly understand what is going on right now? How much more do you need to do so you can predict what will happen tomorrow? Next week? Next year?
Watss ur major major
Where's the shouting?
Wait, so it's ok to kill innocent unarmed people during a drone strike but not when you storm a house? Double standards.
Or is the reason that only when being immediately faced with the emotion of killing an unarmed man face to face that you realize how cowardly you acted?
thank you for not adding anything useful too the debate
+Bob Rijke
Well I'm saying he says it's crucial to have a good translator to avoid collateral damage which doesn't make any sense if the very war you fight is a big bowl of bullcrap and results in the deaths of tens thousands of civilians.
That's pretty useful "too" the debate.
that comment would have been a more useful comment then the one before.
that some actions have not been positive to the war effort
however his talk was about useful communication and translation
not about how to fight the war the right or wrong way.
It's a logical error. Why talk about the specifics of a war when the war is wrong in the first place. If I make a cake out of dog shit, do you really think it matters if I decorate it with chocolate or not?
+B20C0
Comparing war to baking is a weak analogy, regardless of dog shit, because you have the choice to make that cake. Few soldiers in wars hardly ever choose to be in them for the sake of it, so their best option is to complete their mission in the best way possible.
God dam it. GI-Joes come to Fallujah in Iraq to fighting block to block and clear homes.
are you actually in Peace in your life... living this world of such bizzare manipulation.... good god man.... are you happy for the day son your life.... your role in the world?????? MY GOD.......
learn english
Well said my friend.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say...