Okay, so apparently attack drones are not hostile

[[SomeGuy]]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...s.html?_r=2&hp I don't even understand. tl;dr: They're saying that bombs dropped in Libya by attack drones are not hostilities because they're attack drones.

[khh]

Sure, yup, makes perfect sense. Those are the cosy bombs.

[tommo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...s.html?_r=2&hp I don't even understand. tl;dr: They're saying that bombs dropped in Libya by attack drones are not hostilities because they're attack drones. The article didn't exactly express that sentiment. But as far as I can tell, they haven't given a reason at all why they aren't "hostilities" (whatever the fuck that means). They said "hostilities" multiple times in the article and quotes in the article where it wasn't even grammatically correct (that's why I used it like that in my previous sentence). I wish they would just say "You shouldn't be using missile launching robots dude". I don't understand how the president's decision takes precedent over experts in America. I guess it's okay in some respects since most people elect the person and not their party. But otherwise it's just stupid. They have experts for a reason lol

[Xei]

tl;dr: SomeGuy makes random stuff up with no relevance to article. The actions are potentially not hostilities because the stated aim is to fire on Libyan forces so as to defend Libyan civilians, not as aggression against them. Nowhere in the article does it say they're not hostilities 'because they're drones'. At all. Did you think people wouldn't read the article? Or did you not read it properly yourself?

[Carera]

We want them to be hostile to both Assad as well as Gaddafi. And to their supporters, too.

[sloth]

tl;dr: SomeGuy makes random stuff up with no relevance to article. OR maybe he simply misunderstood the article. The important thing here is that you insult him, though.

[Xei]

"Or did you not read it properly yourself?". The important thing is you continue derping.

[Marvo]

What's so bad about drones anyway? I think they are great.

[sloth]

I did not read the article at all. This is irrelavent. I still believe that the possibility that [SomeGuy] misread the article, that he is correct about the article, that he wrote the article himself, that you are just out your head, or that he intentionally mislead us, is still likely enough that one cannot ASSUME that he just "made random stuff up". How about you just deal with the fact that you tried to make fun of someone on the interwebs and I called you out on it. I believe there is probably a positive correlation between how rude someone is online, and how big of a pussy they are in real life. I doubt that you respond to averagely sized people, in real life, in the same sarcastic, condascending way that you do on here. It seems to me like you have a lot of nerdrage going on, caused by frequently getting shoved into lockers, and never getting any women. I am sorry that you are such a wuss, but trying to act like a badass online just makes you look pathetic. Now try to be a good little kid. Mind your manners.

[Xei]

Okay sloth? I was just 'calling out' the OP on misrepresenting the article for whatever reasons. Sorry you find this so distressing and irrelevant. FYI I am a nerd but I'm surrounded by an entire community of them, so I'm free to roam without rage.

[sloth]

Okay sloth? I was just 'calling out' the OP on misrepresenting the article for whatever reasons. My bad. I thought you were just being sarcastic and rude... again. In that case, I was calling you out for misrepresenting the possibilities of what those reasons may be. You did not state that [SomeGuy] "misrepresented the article for whatever reasons" in your original post. You stated that he "makes random stuff up with no relevance to (the) article". I felt that it was conceivable that there were other possibilities. Some of these other possibilities would not have made him sound like a liar, so I wanted to express that it is possible that [SomeGuy] was not intentionally attempting to deceive us.

[Xei]

The British have this amazing thing called 'subtlety', where an ostensibly rude or sarcastic comment may actually have an amicable underlying meaning, or simply be honesty without the soft edges. If my meaning was simply 'SomeGuy is unequivocally a bullshitter', that seems kinda incongruous with my then saying 'perhaps you misread'. Perhaps 'SomeGuy makes stuff up' is just an acerbic way of saying 'the article doesn't actually say anything like this', not meant to be taken with utmost literalness. Could we perhaps terminate this now, it seems kinda trivial and foolish.

[Spartiate]

People who don't read backing people who don't read ...

[sloth]

The British have this amazing thing called 'subtlety', where an ostensibly rude or sarcastic comment may actually have an amicable underlying meaning, or simply be honesty without the soft edges. If my meaning was simply 'SomeGuy is unequivocally a bullshitter', that seems kinda incongruous with my then saying 'perhaps you misread'. Perhaps 'SomeGuy makes stuff up' is just an acerbic way of saying 'the article doesn't actually say anything like this', not meant to be taken with utmost literalness. Could we perhaps terminate this now, it seems kinda trivial and foolish. *excuses you because you're British* ?? Until next time... People who don't read backing people who don't read ... I didn't back anyone. Good job.

[Siиdяed]

None of this thread is about drones any more. *excuses you because you're British* Letting it slide this time, but next time you catch him using damn subtext...

[Spartiate]

I didn't back anyone. Of course, you're the embodiment of neutrality, mr. Switzerland. You also didn't read the article.

[sloth]

The fact that I did not read the article has no bearing on the validity of any of the statements that I have made. Please try to come up with valid points before attempting to use them against me.

[Xei]

Euthanise this thread?

[sloth]

I'm down with that.

[Spartiate]

The fact that I did not read the article has no bearing on the validity of any of the statements that I have made. Please try to come up with valid points before attempting to use them against me. How can you possibly formulate any opinion on what the OP said or any criticism without reading the article?

[sloth]

How can you possibly formulate any opinion on what the OP said or any criticism without reading the article? I cannot. Therefore, I did not.

[Spartiate]

[sloth]

It's all good.

[Siиdяed]

This is not how topical debate works.