|
On November 23 2010 17:10 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:04 randombum wrote: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
No he wasn't, anybody with reading sense would see that he thought casualty= death.
In the thread people say first confirmed death! Moments later he comes in saying first confirmed casualty!
Some one replies no, there's plenty of casualties this is a first death.
He replies no casualty means (implies) death.
Someone else tells him, no, casualty can include injuries too.
He replies stfu your dumb here is link showing casualty does not equal death although all my posts imply I think it does.
I tell him he's wrong.
You call me an idiot.
I expect an apology.
If he was supporting that casualty includes both injuries and death, then when someone tells him its both injury and death he would not call that person wrong.
User was warned for this post
|
I hope that I can sleep easy. I'm so scared.
Randombum: since we might not live until morning, I'll apologize on his behalf.
|
On November 23 2010 17:19 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:11 drhojo wrote: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. Sub 100 poster and you're already trying to flame bait and say nonsense propaganda? Seriously just stop talking. This isn't a thread for infantile bullshit geopolitics 101.
this post shows how open TL is to newer posters
|
On November 23 2010 17:19 Slardarxt wrote:
This thread is front-page worthy right?
I don't understand this post.
|
Thoughts are with everyone on the Korean peninsula at the moment
|
Artillery strikes have stopped now..
Man this island goes through something like this every year it seems like >_<
|
SK held naval exercise near the NLL which is a line separates NK and SK. Obviously NK did not like it and warned the SK navy they will take military action if the exercise will continue. The SK navy ignored it and carried on and this is how things got on. The important thing is that they shot at the island, which is very unusual. Usually they fire at military ships. One marine is dead and 13 people including 3 marines are injured.
|
So far it looks like the only country that would benefit from this conflict is US.
|
Situation was going to go to the UN but updates say that it won't go up that far.
|
On November 23 2010 17:21 KonohaFlash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:19 Slardarxt wrote:
This thread is front-page worthy right? I don't understand this post.
TL.net is particularly partial to South Korea and its happenings because that's the heart of e-Sports currently.
|
This situation today as it always has in the past seems more like Israel-Palestine Jr. Where one side decides it wants to do dumb shit from time to time for no real reason, albeit said one side in this case is nearly always NK.
|
On November 23 2010 17:19 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:11 drhojo wrote: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. Sub 100 poster and you're already trying to flame bait and say nonsense propaganda? Seriously just stop talking. This isn't a thread for infantile bullshit geopolitics 101.
your elitism is so much better than my "infantile bullshit geopolitics." I'm just presenting an alternate, plausible view. as someone who is from China and visits it regularly I can say with certainty you can never trust the Chinese government.
|
|
|
On November 23 2010 17:21 Bshad wrote:
So far it looks like the only country that would benefit from this conflict is US.
God Bless America? :\
|
China is a hell of a lot more tied to the United States economically than most people are giving them credit for. The 2 countries are in a mutually beneficial economic relationship at the moment, and neither want to upset that.
|
On November 23 2010 17:19 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:15 infinitestory wrote:On November 23 2010 17:14 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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... I think the US fears China more than the other way around. Americans are seen as the awesomestest in China (e.g. all the trendy clothes have nonsensical english on them). I don't think we need to fear China coming into a war against the US, certainly not one that'll devastate their neighbor peninsula. This is true. I've lived in China for most my life... it's definitely not the kind of 'bad' place western news media make it out to be. Though, Chinese - Korean and Chinese - Japanese relations aren't that great. (Everyone dislikes everyone it seems).
I don't know if this is the best example... There's a ton of shirts with Chinese writing scrawled all over it in US clothing stores too. Tons of NBA players with Chinese tattooed all over themselves too. Somehow I don't see these facts as major deterrents to the USA attacking China.
|
On November 23 2010 17:21 KonohaFlash wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 17:19 Slardarxt wrote:
This thread is front-page worthy right? I don't understand this post.
Feature the thread so everyone sees it.
OT: I get the feeling N. Korea is not going to stop pulling these stunts until they cross a line no one can ignore.
|
On November 23 2010 17:19 mrdx wrote:
Why are we so quickly saying the W word? SK doesn't want it, China defintiely doesn't want it, and even for NK it'd be very bad timing to start one now.
I believe even if NK does something more aggressive, SK won't engage into a war.
Because NK and SK are still at war, and have been since 25 June 1950–present (thx wiki for exact date).
|
please no more War :'( for fuck sake man
|
S.Korean seems to receive this news quite normally though. I have 2 Koreans friends currently sitting on my bed playing PS3 while I'm the only one monitor the situation :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
