reply to post by gallifreyan medic
I'm not Jewish. I'm of Nordic descent. So you're not even close.
Your assumption for the purpose of insult was therefore inaccurate, making it invalid, therefore it missed me, missed the Jewish people, and if anyone
was shamed, it should be your ancestors.
As a former military man, I find your mistaken assumption that one's response should be of equal or similar proportionality.
I searched the rules of warfare for the past 3,500 years, and not once did I find any indication of swapping like kind, blow for blow.
Such a concept is a fool's errand, and a concept that has never, ever, been practiced in any battle, conflict, campaign, or war since 1479 BC.
This very recent concept of proportional response is only touted by losers.
And those who never, ever do any fighting themselves, and are seeking to somehow limit the degrees of any potential ass-kicking that may arrive at
some point in the future.
In fact, this concept of proportional response in kind, is only presented by the unknowing, in direct proportion to the shrinking of testes in certain
regions from adverse environmental or nutritional shortcomings.
I hate being the bearer of bad news, but the goal in battle, conflict, campaign, or war is to kill as many as you can, with the greatest efficiency,
in the greatest concentrations, in the least amount of time. Fighting is just that simple.
Anytime, militarily speaking, that you can obtain an advantage on a battlefield and not take maximum advantage of it, then you are your own worst
Militarily speaking, the casualties optimally will be completely one sided.
The more you kill of the other side without losing any of your own, the smarter you just fought. Militarily speaking.
Militarily speaking, you kill them from behind, from above, while they bathe, or while they sleep, ideally. It minimizes your own casualties.
One sided casualty figures are absolute proof of success. The more staggering the ratio, the greater success.