Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300gn Scenar at 2700 yards
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 395860" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>BH, </p><p></p><p>I never said a public debate supports the military. If I did, locate that quote and bring it to the light of day. A debate doesn't end in a pre-destined conclusion. </p><p></p><p>Here's what I responded to:</p><p>"<strong>With respect to the question of "from History, has anything good come from the public debate of military actions, can it help the moral of the troops, are our troops coming back and feeling supported and honored, not one I have talked to</strong>."" </p><p></p><p>And here's what I stated:</p><p>"<strong>If the troops feel like the debate is targeting them as individuals? Well we cannot control how others interpretate a valid public debate</strong>." </p><p></p><p>Your re-wording of my post lacks any resemblance to what I stated. </p><p></p><p>And here are my final comments in the Post you refer to:</p><p>"<strong>No public debate is a recipe for disaster. No public debate cripples a true democracy. Full public debate can, and usually does, strengthen it. At least over the long haul. In the interim period, things can admitedly, get a little fiesty</strong>."</p><p></p><p>I'm comfortable with those statements. No backpeddling here. I'm not responsible for what you make of those statements, or answering to any alternative, preferred interpretations of your own making. My statements speak clearly, just as typed. I read no ****-the-troops intention into it. That's seems to be your mission in this Thread. Turn anyone with a difference of perspective or opinion into an anti-troops, anit-American. After all, that'll teach'em. Or intimidate them into silence. You'll even have some supporters, no matter how outlandish your interpretation and re-stating of the facts.</p><p></p><p>So I believe I've heard your position. What I have not heard is how the Posts and statements in this Thread justify your presumption of troop-bashing or sniper-bashing. You've conjured up the worst and responded in defense of life and limb. Not my goal to send you over the edge. Why you would imagine I or other's would take pleasure in attacking the troops that defend us is beyond me. Are you unable to separate this Thread - a discussion of the possibilities of ultra long range hits and whether or not the article could be true or embellished, from a troop bashing mission? If not, I can only conclude that life's experiences have caused this to be an ultra-sensitive issue for you. Don't presume everyone that hasn't served as a sniper or in some other role is out to defile the reputation of the military. Frankly, I want our enemies to fear our snipers and military organization. No fight at all is the best fight.</p><p></p><p>It's reported some troops find this discussion disheartening. It's also been reported others do not, and would not. Democracy is about compromise. We are all a little different. Yet we mostly agree to live with the majority concensus. I'm not willing to forego discussion of the credibility of reports covering the war effort, because the discussion might step on sacred ground to some. Placing the discussion off-limits also steps on sacred ground. As other's have already aptly expressed. </p><p></p><p>My advice - if you're up to receiving any? Take the statements for what they say and are - nothing more until there's no denying the motive. You want to end interest and discussion of sniper's shots on this Forum? Good luck. Every long range hunter or shooter will take an interest. I never presumed, and when all was said and done, concluded that any member that posted had it in for the military. Most, including myself, made the equivalent of such a statement, supportive of the sniper. I didn't feel it should be necessary, but I did it anyhow to communicate my intentions in that regard. You don't wanna believe me? As you say, you've earned that right. As have all other Forum member's from my perspective. I've earned rights also, believe it or not.</p><p></p><p>Don't interpret this Post as backpeddling. I've never had a motive that would require backpeddling.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 395860, member: 4191"] BH, I never said a public debate supports the military. If I did, locate that quote and bring it to the light of day. A debate doesn't end in a pre-destined conclusion. Here's what I responded to: "[B]With respect to the question of "from History, has anything good come from the public debate of military actions, can it help the moral of the troops, are our troops coming back and feeling supported and honored, not one I have talked to[/B]."" And here's what I stated: "[B]If the troops feel like the debate is targeting them as individuals? Well we cannot control how others interpretate a valid public debate[/B]." Your re-wording of my post lacks any resemblance to what I stated. And here are my final comments in the Post you refer to: "[B]No public debate is a recipe for disaster. No public debate cripples a true democracy. Full public debate can, and usually does, strengthen it. At least over the long haul. In the interim period, things can admitedly, get a little fiesty[/B]." I'm comfortable with those statements. No backpeddling here. I'm not responsible for what you make of those statements, or answering to any alternative, preferred interpretations of your own making. My statements speak clearly, just as typed. I read no ****-the-troops intention into it. That's seems to be your mission in this Thread. Turn anyone with a difference of perspective or opinion into an anti-troops, anit-American. After all, that'll teach'em. Or intimidate them into silence. You'll even have some supporters, no matter how outlandish your interpretation and re-stating of the facts. So I believe I've heard your position. What I have not heard is how the Posts and statements in this Thread justify your presumption of troop-bashing or sniper-bashing. You've conjured up the worst and responded in defense of life and limb. Not my goal to send you over the edge. Why you would imagine I or other's would take pleasure in attacking the troops that defend us is beyond me. Are you unable to separate this Thread - a discussion of the possibilities of ultra long range hits and whether or not the article could be true or embellished, from a troop bashing mission? If not, I can only conclude that life's experiences have caused this to be an ultra-sensitive issue for you. Don't presume everyone that hasn't served as a sniper or in some other role is out to defile the reputation of the military. Frankly, I want our enemies to fear our snipers and military organization. No fight at all is the best fight. It's reported some troops find this discussion disheartening. It's also been reported others do not, and would not. Democracy is about compromise. We are all a little different. Yet we mostly agree to live with the majority concensus. I'm not willing to forego discussion of the credibility of reports covering the war effort, because the discussion might step on sacred ground to some. Placing the discussion off-limits also steps on sacred ground. As other's have already aptly expressed. My advice - if you're up to receiving any? Take the statements for what they say and are - nothing more until there's no denying the motive. You want to end interest and discussion of sniper's shots on this Forum? Good luck. Every long range hunter or shooter will take an interest. I never presumed, and when all was said and done, concluded that any member that posted had it in for the military. Most, including myself, made the equivalent of such a statement, supportive of the sniper. I didn't feel it should be necessary, but I did it anyhow to communicate my intentions in that regard. You don't wanna believe me? As you say, you've earned that right. As have all other Forum member's from my perspective. I've earned rights also, believe it or not. Don't interpret this Post as backpeddling. I've never had a motive that would require backpeddling. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300gn Scenar at 2700 yards
Top