|
On November 23 2010 17:04 randombum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 16:47 okajunior wrote:On November 23 2010 16:45 Scrapiron wrote:On November 23 2010 16:41 okajunior wrote:On November 23 2010 16:40 furymonkey wrote:On November 23 2010 16:38 okajunior wrote:
1 confirmed casualty. This is not looking good
You meant death, the word casualty includes injuired. no casualty also implies death I believe. You are wrong. um.... I don't want to really get into this right now so now please stfu http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casualty No, YOU are wrong, from you own link "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion. 2. one who is injured or killed in an accident: There were no casualties in the traffic accident. 3. any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event: Their house was a casualty of the fire. 4. a serious accident, esp. one involving bodily injury or death." (bolded useful parts) So no, casualty does NOT imply death, it includes death but saying every casualty is a death is wrong so why don't you stfu and stop acting all high and mighty when your own link proves you wrong. As to the situation, I doubt it will escalate, at least I hope so.
You're an idiot. His post was in support of casualty as an injury or death. He just wanted people to stop arguing about it (hence him posting the link to the definition)
On-topic: Watching this and I'm so damn tired but I don't want to go to sleep. I really hope everything goes alright, my former research partner is in the airport right now waiting for a flight to LA
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
If China wanted a war, they'd start one. War is the last thing China wants.
|
China said it would maintain status quo. seems like they don't want to incur the wrath of either NK or SK by supporting either side
EDIT: i meant the world
|
On November 23 2010 17:10 susySquark wrote:
BTW, casualty does NOT mean death. It is a sum of both injuries and deaths.
Can we just drop this useless fucking bickering? It's just about as bad as the SC jokes, if you want to argue with someone about something relatively inane use the PM button. Thank you.
|
On November 23 2010 17:10 VorcePA wrote:I missed it. I saw the 200 shells, and then heard more shells firing over the stream. This is the first I'm hearing about it stopping.
I edited my post: NYT was faster at updating apparently
|
On November 23 2010 17:10 susySquark wrote:
BTW, casualty does NOT mean death. It is a sum of both injuries and deaths.
In military terms a casualty is death. Hence why they said 1 casualty 15 injured.
|
51331 Posts
|
On November 23 2010 17:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone who is familiar with this situation give some input on WHY they think North Korea did this? What made them think this is a good idea? What did they gain?
They want to divert their own population's attention from the fact that they are starving because of their leader's corruption and incompetence.
|
On November 23 2010 17:10 Fenrax wrote:
If China wanted a war, they'd start one. War is the last thing China wants.
they want an excuse so that they can get public support for it.
|
http://tv.zeroboy.net/konadora/
Kona switch between many channels to bring you the full picture of this.
I recommend people watch his stream if you concerned with this matter
|
On November 23 2010 17:12 Caphe wrote:http://tv.zeroboy.net/konadora/Kona switch between many channels to bring you the full picture of this. I recommend people watch his stream if you concerned with this matter
Ya, I second this. Thanks kona~
|
--Never mind it was just temporary coverage---
Edit: Hope everyone is ok, this is very interesting too watch I must admit, but also very sad and hopefully nothing too bad comes from it.
|
This was probably mentioned but given the history of how wars typically start, it is very rarely because of common sense. There is a lot of back and forth in this thread that is trying to make sense of this event which is understandable but keep in mind that should things escalate (which I hope they won't), it probably won't be for black and white reasons, albeit the latter will be used after the fact to justify the actions.
It's been a few years since I read him but I think it was Machiavelli who said that Princes go to war over the same foolish stuff that farmers fight.
|
Kau
Canada3500 Posts
Stop talking about the definition of casualty. Any more of those after this post is getting punished.
Edit: I'll give the post below me the benefit of the doubt that he didn't see this yet because of same time stamp.
|
On November 23 2010 17:11 KonohaFlash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:10 susySquark wrote:
BTW, casualty does NOT mean death. It is a sum of both injuries and deaths. In military terms a casualty is death. Hence why they said 1 casualty 15 injured.
casualty means unable to fight/function. If you're injured and sent home you're a casualty of war.
|
On November 23 2010 17:13 Kau wrote:
Stop talking about the definition of casualty. Any more of those after this post is getting punished.
On November 23 2010 17:13 drhojo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:11 KonohaFlash wrote:On November 23 2010 17:10 susySquark wrote:
BTW, casualty does NOT mean death. It is a sum of both injuries and deaths. In military terms a casualty is death. Hence why they said 1 casualty 15 injured. casualty means unable to fight/function. If you're injured and sent home you're a casualty of war.
lol
|
On November 23 2010 17:10 Fenrax wrote:
If China wanted a war, they'd start one. War is the last thing China wants.
They seek stability. They're on the rise and a war in the region would only hurt their goals. The buffer zone, while something they might like, is not something they would go to war for anymore. North Korea is a bigger headache to China than they're worth. I'm surprised at the number of people who think China is some ravenous group still that fears the US so much...
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
On November 23 2010 17:13 drhojo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:11 KonohaFlash wrote:On November 23 2010 17:10 susySquark wrote:
BTW, casualty does NOT mean death. It is a sum of both injuries and deaths. In military terms a casualty is death. Hence why they said 1 casualty 15 injured. casualty means unable to fight/function. If you're injured and sent home you're a casualty of war.
lol, the post that immediately follows the warning... morons...
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
|
I think he posted at same time...cut the guy a break.
Edit: Break given...the kau is a wise man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
