They are not human and is rather silly to use human ideals and reasoning.
What difference does that make, they do on a regular basis and on all sorts of missions, including house raids.
Dogs parachuted into Afghanistan
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
They are not human and is rather silly to use human ideals and reasoning.
What difference does that make, they do on a regular basis and on all sorts of missions, including house raids.
So every Prime Minister and President (etc) going has been a coward for ordering troops to attack and die on their behest? Even in acts of defence of their realm?
What about those battle hardened Generals, top brass and commanders; someone has to do the job of control and direction - are they now cowards for looking at maps and directing movements?
They are not avoiding combat, they are avoiding unnecessary slaughter of human life. Tactically, it isn't the brightest. We've moved on from trenchwarfare on the whole, and destroying unconfimed targets/houses would only lead to the death of innoccent life.
Bravado isn't a good soldiers tool I wouldn't have thought.
Not at all.
None of that changes the fact that this act was cowardly.
Did you read what I wrote? I said innocent, not volunteers.
By fighting a war you are guaranteeing the loss of innocent life in the first place.
Last edited:
Think you need to look that word up.
I was going to say the same thing to you.
It seriously isn't cowardness at all.
I'd hazzard a guess that the majority of these men have been involved in stuff that would trully frighten us on on here, I can't call them cowards.
Its a judgement call.
I love dogs, I love animals. I can't help but think you've just got animals too close to heart, and I think emotion is clouding your judgement labelling special forces cowards for using dogs in combat.
Aren't the police the exact same by your standards then?
Are they all cowards too?
Do the police typically sacrifice dogs by sending them into houses full of people with AK's?
Yes I did, and you are not making sense in context.
Innocent or volunteeers, the question still stands as you are calling them cowards for using animals.
I want to know how for your definition of coward is drawn.
Please answer the question, or I'll post it bit by bit again for you.
And, does that mean you should just bomb the **** out of everyone just because someone said 'won't you think of the canines?!?'
Get real.
Do you read the newspapers at all?
They practically throw them into everything, from bombers to armed suspects.
I asked a question, that's not an argument.
Coward is someone who sacrifices others to do the job they are supposed to be doing.
And, does that mean you should just bomb the **** out of everyone just because someone said 'won't you think of the canines?!?'
Get real.
No it means you should either accept a risk of dying or not fight in a war.
Do you read the newspapers at all?
They practically throw them into everything, from bombers to armed suspects.
I use websites.
People who put animals at risk instead of themselves are cowards yes.
That's not what they are doing, the army using the tools it has to maximise efficiency and reduce casualties.
That is not the same thing as cowards. These people are in fire fights and do their jobs.
Associate
smells like bull poo to me
And that happens to be sacrificing animals.
No it is not, sacrificing Implies no use and certain out come of death. Not used appropriately with proper training and used in a way. Where they are likely to survive.
Dogs still cost a lot of money and effort to train.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0726490#m_en_gb0726490
sacrifice(sac¦ri|fice)
3 an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy
Got stats on that?
That definition, does not support your view.
That is like a gunmen saying I will kill someone and you chose to sacrifice yourself to save the others.