First flight of X-47B unmanned aircraft demonstrator in cruise mode

The US Navy doesn't get it yet. It appears that pilots of drones do nearly as much work as an actual pilot. They also wear Pilot suits to their job. Imagine the cost cutting to use a fat pimply teenager w/ a PS3 controller.

War is a strange thing. We seem to invent more and more ways to take people out of the equation. When people is what it's all about. Additionally, I think it's redefining courage.
 
This is the future of the USN's aircraft. No more expensive pilots to train, pay, maintain, and retirement plus benefits. Now if they can only replace those pesky sailors with bots.
And when they replace the controllers with computers then the machines won't have relatives to worry about when missions demand that they put down some town that isn't paying its taxes. Yeehaw. Love those elites.
 
War is a strange thing. We seem to invent more and more ways to take people out of the equation. When people is what it's all about. Additionally, I think it's redefining courage.

Courage is holding Sirte despite the fact that all of NATO is against you. Courage is flying a plane into a building. Courage is a suicide mission but you do it because you believe it must be done. Cowardice is sitting in an office pushing little figures around a map of the world knowing that other people will die for your profit.

But, no faethor - people is not what war is all about, only power. Taking the people out of the process is merely an acknowledgement of that. There is no more to the machine than automating the process of eradication. Populations of human beings living on land you want to control are no more human than the ants in the anthill that is disfiguring your lawn. All these must die because I have a right to own my lawn and make it as I wish. That is the mentality of entitlement but when you own more wealth than a million people combined those million are merely piss ants (or peasants).
 
Courage is flying a plane into a building. Courage is a suicide mission but you do it because you believe it must be done.

That isn't courage, that is cowardice. Any time you say such a thing, you wipe out any other credibility you ever had. If someone felt you wronged them on Whyzzat and they walked into your house in Canada with a suicide belt taking out your whole family and neighbors, they were not courageous. Timothy McVeigh was not courageous.

Martin Luther King Jr, the real man, was courageous. Gandhi was courageous. The navy seal team who took out Osama was courageous.
 
That isn't courage, that is cowardice. Any time you say such a thing, you wipe out any other credibility you ever had.
Facing certain death is not courageous - no, no, no - but bombing from a distance, maybe at the controls of some drone while thousands of miles from the people you are killing who couldn't possibly reach you and don't even have the weapons to reach your remote controlled plane is brave. Firing a missile from the comfort of your chair is the profile in courage. You know you aren't saying what normal people in the world say - you are speaking the PR tripe that not even all Americans believe just because you have to say that what Americans do is morally superior, even if it's vile.

Timothy McVeigh was not courageous.
Timothy McVeigh parked his bomb and walked away - letting it kill while he was safely out of range and he didn't have to see his victims. That is what the US military does all the time. And you are right - it isn't courageous.
Martin Luther King Jr, the real man, was courageous. Gandhi was courageous. The navy seal team who took out Osama was courageous.
One of these things is not like the others. You have an odious form of blindness.
 
Courage is flying a plane into a building.

Courage typically has a moral component to it. Standing up to do the right thing in the face of great, and potentially deadly adversity. Crashing a plane into building is rarely the right thing to do. Killing hundreds of basically innocent people while trying to make some kind of "statement" is _NEVER_ the right thing to do. Are you really trying to tell me this was the only method these people had to effect change? I highly doubt that was the case. There was nothing less stupid and destructive they could have spent their lives doing to benefit their cause? Were the kids of Columbine courageous, or did they just waste their own lives along with several innocent ones in a convoluted "statement" because they were too near-sighted and foolish to confront bullying in a sane and productive manner?

For as many great points as you make, Fluffy... This is one stance of yours that completely befuddles me.
 
That isn't courage, that is cowardice.

Kamikazes - cowards?

The "cowardice" myth is clearly false on it's face.

Being prepared to give up one's own life because one believes it necessary for the greater good is the very definition of courage.
That it more often than not involves the slaying of others is not the point.

The people who flew planes into the WTC were horrible, murderous cunts.
But that says nothing about their alleged cowardice.

Cowardice (with apologies to Roger Waters) is the bravery of being out of range.
 
Courage typically has a moral component to it. Standing up to do the right thing in the face of great, and potentially deadly adversity. Crashing a plane into building is rarely the right thing to do. Killing hundreds of basically innocent people while trying to make some kind of "statement" is _NEVER_ the right thing to do. Are you really trying to tell me this was the only method these people had to effect change? I highly doubt that was the case. There was nothing less stupid and destructive they could have spent their lives doing to benefit their cause? Were the kids of Columbine courageous, or did they just waste their own lives along with several innocent ones in a convoluted "statement" because they were too near-sighted and foolish to confront bullying in a sane and productive manner?

For as many great points as you make, Fluffy... This is one stance of yours that completely befuddles me.
Well, I think Fluffy wants to point out is that these terrorists actually thought it was the right thing to do, and offered themselves up to that cause. But then again, if they also really think there's a good afterlife waiting for them, then that action is as evil as the banker's drones.
 
Are you really trying to tell me this was the only method these people had to effect change?

I don't believe he was and furthermore, I don't see how that's relevant.

They gave up their lives (and murdered thousands in the process) for something they believed in.
Whether that belief was 72 Virgins, a seat next to God, the hope that it might wound "The Great Satan" or whatever other, badger-shite-crazy beliefs these nutters had, says nothing about courage or cowardice.
 
Courage typically has a moral component to it. Standing up to do the right thing in the face of great, and potentially deadly adversity.

Well, you raise an important point. This is one of the problems with "courage" because morals are so malleable. America doing it, for example, makes it "right" to Americans. While Britain was smashing the people of India under the hooves of their cavalry it was obviously "right" to Britains, but was seen as unjust by those being trampled to defend their homes.
Killing hundreds of basically innocent people while trying to make some kind of "statement" is _NEVER_ the right thing to do.
1) Seen from the other side, were all those people who helped run the machinery of oppression really innocent?
2) was the aim simply to make a statement or was it a militarily important target in a war?
3) was it done because they hated our freedoms or was it done because they perceived the US to be a real enemy and no amount of "negotiation" had effect and "legitimate protest" was ruthlessly crushed?

The Allies leveled Dresden killing thousands of "innocent" people and we can argue about how innocent or not they were because that's a very flexible line based on what you are trying to justify - but was it just to make a statement? Maybe it was. But it's all OK, apparently, because it was "our" side that did it and anyway, we were being attacked.

That is our morality because that is the side we sit on - we are innocent, they are malcontents: we righteously smite them, they sneakily attack us.
 
Well, I think Fluffy wants to point out is that these terrorists actually thought it was the right thing to do, and offered themselves up to that cause.
If the terrorists seriously believed that killing hundreds of innocents was the right thing to do... Then it STILL isn't courage, it's dementia. There is ALWAYS a better alternative than random killing. One only has to look at the examples of Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Galileo, or hundreds of thousands of others who have practiced real and peaceful change to see that.
 
For as many great points as you make, Fluffy... This is one stance of yours that completely befuddles me.

It killed innocent Americans, some of them jews. That made Fluffy happy and he did fist pumps when it first happened. He especially liked watching 911 jumpers splat in on the pavement (his own words).
 
Kamikazes - cowards?

The "cowardice" myth is clearly false on it's face.

No, it does not. Courageous acts are something of ethical or moral value. I hardly think any stretch of the imagination will say that slaughtering thousands of innocent people for the reward of 72 virgins isn't an ethical act, it is misguided greed. The thought of the suicide act being courageous also laughable. They flew a plane into a building from the cockpit, killing themselves practically instantly. How is that courageous? Is slitting your own wrists courageous? Is jumping in front of a speeding train courageous? I think not. Those are slower and more painful was of suicide and still not courageous.
 
If the terrorists seriously believed that killing hundreds of innocents was the right thing to do... Then it STILL isn't courage, it's dementia.

So the allied airmen who flew dangerous missions over occupied Europe to bomb German cities were demented?

There is ALWAYS a better alternative than random killing.

I agree but, at risk of labouring what I thought was obvious, it says absolutely nothing about courage or cowardice.
 
Well, you raise an important point. This is one of the problems with "courage" because morals are so malleable. America doing it, for example, makes it "right" to Americans. While Britain was smashing the people of India under the hooves of their cavalry it was obviously "right" to Britains, but was seen as unjust by those being trampled to defend their homes.

Well, just because I live in America and identify myself as American doesn't mean I'm all good with everything my country does. Lately, it's been pretty rare we've been in the "right" on anything, which deeply saddens me.

1) Seen from the other side, were all those people who helped run the machinery of oppression really innocent?

Yeah, the office drones are really oppressing people. The IT guys. The poor bastards that sell your life insurance policies. Yep. You're arguing that they're really legitimate targets?? Seriously? And that is completely ignoring the passengers on the planes.

2) was the aim simply to make a statement or was it a militarily important target in a war?

From Al Qaeda's own statements, it seems that the attack was meant to provoke the US. That would seem to fall more as a "statement" than a militarily important target.

3) was it done because they hated our freedoms or was it done because they perceived the US to be a real enemy and no amount of "negotiation" had effect and "legitimate protest" was ruthlessly crushed?

I do believe the US is their enemy. And we've done some things to deserve that title. But seriously? "Legitimate protest" being ruthlessly crushed? A lot like terrorism is?

The Allies leveled Dresden killing thousands of "innocent" people and we can argue about how innocent or not they were because that's a very flexible line based on what you are trying to justify - but was it just to make a statement? Maybe it was. But it's all OK, apparently, because it was "our" side that did it and anyway, we were being attacked.

I can't really speak to WWII, but see previous comments. Just because I'm American doesn't mean we're always right.

That is our morality because that is the side we sit on - we are innocent, they are malcontents: we righteously smite them, they sneakily attack us.

Well, certainly your point about morals being malleable is germane. But I think most 3rd party observers would consider terrorism more sneaky than righteous. In other words, not a very moral thing to do, regardless of purpose.
 
If the terrorists seriously believed that killing hundreds of innocents was the right thing to do...
Of course they don't. They were killing the guilty. They struck at the command center of world domination and those killed were the soldiers of the regime.
Then it STILL isn't courage, it's dementia.
Hypothetical: You are from a village where all your family, aunts uncles, cousins, etc, etc and just about everyone you ever knew lives and that village is about to destroyed by a drone attack. Not one of the drone pilots is technically "guilty" because they are all just doing their job and following orders. They can't possibly know who is about to die but take it on faith the the village is crawling with insurgents that want to randomly kill Americans and take away their freedom. You, by some miracle, have just been given a truck bomb. Will it take courage to drive into the command and control center destroying it and killing all (random) people within to save the lives of all those you love? Or will it require dementia?
There is ALWAYS a better alternative than random killing.
1) the killings at the towers were not random, precisely because the towers were targeted. Random is somewhat overused and generally utterly inaccurate but it makes us feel morally superior to believe that when others kill it is insane and random.
2) Your statement can only be true if "getting killed without accomplishing any change" also constitutes "a better alternative".
One only has to look at the examples of Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Galileo, or hundreds of thousands of others who have practiced real and peaceful change to see that.
Or the millions of people whose names we can never know because they were squashed and extinguished with barely a trace. Go tell the protesters of Bahrain, or the monks of Burma, how effective peaceful protest is - if you can find some still living.
 
So the allied airmen who flew dangerous missions over occupied Europe to bomb German cities were demented?

Certainly not demented... But not exactly courageous, either. I've never been a big fan of air bombing the hell out of people. The best argument (and really only excuse) for the allied bombings is the old playground one. "He (the Germans) started it. I had to punch him, he punched me." And, I think back to Junior High, and I don't think I was acting all that courageously when I punched back at the bully who hit me. It was more like I acted on the motivated self interest of not getting my ass kicked.
 
Is slitting your own wrists courageous? Is jumping in front of a speeding train courageous? I think not.

I disagree. I think both would normally require a degree of courage. Certainly more courage than I have.

The idea that suicide is equal to cowardice is, in my opinion, nothing more than a media-friendly sound bite.
 
Back
Top