id
stringlengths 1
4
| source_text
stringlengths 7
272
| reply_text
stringlengths 2
3.76k
⌀ | label
class label 4
classes |
|---|---|---|---|
4200 | #BREAKING: At least two people have died following the #SydneySiege. 5 people are being treated by paramedics. | @AusNewsNetwork noooooo :((( | 3comment
|
4201 | #BREAKING: At least two people have died following the #SydneySiege. 5 people are being treated by paramedics. | @AusNewsNetwork ideally the 2 dead are the ones that were practicing their "Religion of Peace" | 3comment
|
4202 | #BREAKING: At least two people have died following the #SydneySiege. 5 people are being treated by paramedics. | @AusNewsNetwork NOO.. | 3comment
|
4203 | #sydneysiege is over. 2 confirmed dead, #PrayForSydney #PrayForSydneyHostages #Sydney #hostages | @timsullivan23 Hey Tim was up | 3comment
|
4204 | #sydneysiege is over. 2 confirmed dead, #PrayForSydney #PrayForSydneyHostages #Sydney #hostages | No. Please no. “@timsullivan23: #sydneysiege is over. 2 confirmed dead, #PrayForSydney #PrayForSydneyHostages #Sydney #hostages” | 3comment
|
4205 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL I'm fucking traumatized | 3comment
|
4206 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL oh my god | 3comment
|
4207 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL :( | 3comment
|
4208 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL both dead angus 😓 3 injured | 3comment
|
4209 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL Angus!! They havent said anything about the gunman?? | 2query
|
4210 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL THANK GAWD IT'S OVER | 3comment
|
4211 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL @horanosaur | 3comment
|
4212 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @vanilIapayne @Angus_OL people escaping and it's all over mow | 3comment
|
4213 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @emaccaz_ @Angus_OL I DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO I WAS TOO SCARED WHAT HAPPENED | 3comment
|
4214 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL I think it's 4 injured. I can't believe this is happening. I've also heard 2 people have died | 1deny
|
4215 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL watching it live! | 3comment
|
4216 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL @vanilIapayne THATS THE LADY FROM THE VIDEO | 3comment
|
4217 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @emaccaz_ omfg it is 😱😱😱😱😱 | 3comment
|
4218 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL so thankful everyone's safe it's been a long day | 3comment
|
4219 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL :( | 3comment
|
4220 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL thank god they're all safe now. some wounded, but still safe. | 0support
|
4221 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL thank god its over, they're finally safe, although some are wounded. what a terrifying thing to be put through :( | 3comment
|
4222 | Police confirm that #sydneysiege is finally over. Two people reportedly injured after suffering gunshot wounds http://t.co/nsprnSYTDT | @Angus_OL The 6 of us are watching this unfold, I'm shaking, My heart goes out to the hostages and their families. http://t.co/uXrJGokIGC | 0support
|
4223 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | No. look it up online, not on Reddit. | 3comment
|
4224 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | Only your ass hair because Satan lives in your anus.
^^Okay, ^^that ^^one ^^was ^^dumb ^^even ^^by ^^my ^^standards. | 3comment
|
4225 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | No. It only looks that way because the hair hasnt tapered yet. | 1deny
|
4226 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | Nope, it's a myth | 1deny
|
4227 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | Not really. Hair that falls out grows back in with a tapered tip so it's thinner at the end. When you shave, you're slicing through a hair at full thickness. So it feels thicker, but only because you cut it across instead of waiting for it to fall out or plucking/waxing it out and letting it grow back in with a thin tip. | 1deny
|
4228 | Is it true that when you shave hair on a certain part of your body it grows back thicker? | See Kramer from Seinfeld: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuboJiAUMd8 | 3comment
|
4229 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Ah yes, Marshall's study on combat fire ratios. The answer is: no one knows. There's a lot of explosions and confusions during war, keep in mind 20% of all casualties in WWII was from friendly fire ^ 0 (over the years this decreased as our forces became more organized or alternatively the enemies after WWII we fought were less and less organized then the Axis). Many people have cried bullshit at his studies, his studies were poorly documented, were based on after action interviews, and said things like "Brennan’s account also reinforces the contention of critics of Marshall’s use of statistics, who conclude that Marshall was unscientific in his methodology and that his figures about the percentage of troops firing their weapons were either sloppy, fabricated, or simply guesswork. ... Nevertheless, unlike the recollection of the Army
captain who accompanied Marshall in Europe in World War II that he could not
recall Marshall ever asking who had fired his weapon, Brennan does recall the
journalist occasionally asking that question directly in his interviews in Korea." ^1
I would like to mention a scene in Maus, the comic book / biography in which the author's father is ordered to fire his weapon, so he blindly fires it, partly because he's unwilling to take another life (although later he does kill a German soldier). ^3 In a google search I just made, somewhere between 25,000 to 100,000 rounds were expended per kill in Vietnam. That is because of suppressive fire. But I must say that it's hard to figure out the motivations for suppressive fire, it could be caused by combat stress or opposing enemy suppressive fire causing soldiers to , or it could be a result of a psychological factor that results in people to avoid aiming directly at an enemy (few people want to kill another person).
I also would like to say it's pretty unlikely for soldiers to admit in front of their comrades that they didn't even attempt to kill an enemy. Unfortunately nothing is certain in war, maybe when we attach cameras to the guns of soldiers we could get a better glimpse, but even then... nothing is certain.
I apologize that this post falls a little short of the standards of this subreddit, but this question is probably better asked in r/military/ or r/asksocialscience/ .
On a final note, Marshall's statistics was part of the reason for the adoption of the M16, it was felt that automatic weapons would allow soldiers who typically don't fire their weapons to blind fire their weapons through suppressive fire.
References:
0. [Added this one in at last minute] (https://web.archive.org/web/20070329001132/http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm)
1. [S. L. A. Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios](http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/03autumn/chambers.pdf)
2. [Men Against Fire: How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam War] (http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm)
3. Maus I: A Survivor's Tale
4. | 3comment
|
4230 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Probably referring to S. L. A. Marshall's findings, reported in Men Against Fire and other places:
>The thing is simply this, that out of an average 100 men along the line of fire during the period of an encounter, only 15 men on average would take any part with the weapons. This was true whether the action was spread over a day, or two days or three...In the most aggressive infantry companies, under the most intense local pressure, the figure rarely rose above 25% of total strength from the opening to the close of an action.
And
>It is therefore reasonable to believe that the average and healthy individual--the man who can endure the mental and physical stresses of combat--still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility...At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector...
Marshall's conclusions have not gone unchallenged, and are still discussed today. [Apparently his methods were not very rigorous or scientific](http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/03autumn/chambers.pdf), and there's lots of reasons for a soldier to not fire his weapon, even in a close engagement with the enemy. (Do keep in mind that the weapons of the time were powerful enough to make even a fleeting and momentary glimpse of the enemy a good opportunity for a kill. These weren't firing lines 100 yards apart. Even an earnest killer might not have abundant opportunities of actually shooting someone.)
Still, after WWII they led to innovations in training to increase rate of fire. | 3comment
|
4231 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | This claim comes from 'Man Against Fire' by S.L.A. Marshall, who was a US Army historian for WW2. He's fairly controversial, as is the book, and the 15%-20% figure comes from his book, although it's misquoted.
For one, he's basing it off interviews he did, which isn't exactly a good piece of evidence. Also, it's more specific then is stated. Only 15-20% of *American riflemen* fired their *personal* weapons *at an exposed enemy soldier*. This makes the statistic a lot more understandable, because it excludes crew-served weapons (machine guns), and key weapons (flamethrowers).
While his numbers were initially accepted and frequently quoted, they've been called into question several times. One of the larger things I've seen pointed out in rebuttals of his statistics is that it fails to distinguish between soldiers who *can* fire, and shoulders who *should* fire. A medic has a sidearm. Should he be firing at an exposed soldier, or should he be doing his normal duties? What about squad leaders, more focused on directing the battle then taking shots themselves?
[This](http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/03autumn/chambers.pdf) is an excellent breakdown of why his methods were called into question, and includes an interview by the man who accompanied him through his interviews in the Korean war (which came up with a 50% fire rate). Some sample issues with his work include that he didn't interview casualties, only unharmed men who were still ready for action, that he didn't take into account things like weapons jamming, and that his numbers were based more on guesses then anything else. It wasn't a proper survey even, but instead a group discussion he'd pull information out of.
Simply put... it's just not very good history. It's hard to get a proper number for how many soldiers fired their guns, but the 15-20% is more or less impossible to back up, and completely ignores several significant factors. | 3comment
|
4232 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | That claim is based on the books "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society", by David Grossman; and "Men against Fire", by SLA Marshall.
I'll get my bias out here - I think this idea is crap, and the basic reason is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no evidence to support that claim.
Marshall's work, wherein he makes the claim that 75% of soldiers do not fire on the enemy, was based on post-combat interviews with soldiers, but no record of any questions about the ratio of fire exists.
In fact, the only record of his interviews at all (besides his books), makes mention of soldiers firing weapons, but nothing whatsoever that could support a hard number of how many men fired or did not fire.
There is no evidence of statistical analysis based on his interviews, no records of questions about whether soldiers fired or not, no questions about ammunition consumption. There is no evidence from quartermasters about ammunition consumption, barrel wear, or any other secondary evidence.
So this number is one that Marshall may have arrived at honestly, but there is simply no evidence to support it.
If you're interested, Robert Engen wrote a very incisive article on the subject in the Canadian Military Journal, and wrote his Masters thesis on the subject.
Engen found (and has the evidence to prove) that - for Canadians, at the very least - did not have this problem. Based on primary sources (written post-combat interviews with Canadian officers), he found *exactly the opposite* of what Marshall and Grossman claim.
Canadian officers found that their forces fire was very effective, and, if anything, their men fired *too much*!
So - there's no evidence to support this claim, and there is primary source evidence that it is BS.
If you'd like to read Engen's article in the CMJ or his thesis, here they are:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp
http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/1081/1/Engen_Robert_C_200803_MA.pdf
In the interest of (a little) balance, Grossman makes a (in my opinion very feeble) defense of his work and Marshall's in the CMJ as well:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/18-grossman-eng.asp | 1deny
|
4233 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I hate to comment on your lengthy, well thought out post with such a short reply but it is all I can muster in my exhaustion. While most ORDINARY men do not want to kill, you will be hard pressed to find a soldier who wouldn't kill to save his life or the people around him. My life or the guy who is shooting at me? I'm pulling the trigger 10/10. | 3comment
|
4234 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm is without a doubt the sketchiest source I have ever seen on this subreddit. | 3comment
|
4235 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Don't be ashamed, it's a reasonable point I have overlooked.
Typical modern battles are kinetic, soldiers rarely fight at bayonet distance, they often fight at (50 to 300 meters away)[http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/infantry-combat-ranges.html] (even in a stress free environment like a shooting range, it's a bit difficult firing at a target that far away). So even if you're pulling the trigger, it's hard to aim, subconsciously you don't want to kill, so when you fire, you might purposefully... miss slightly.
That was my point. I'm just saying it's probably a bit more likely that it isn't that people don't shoot, but that people do shoot but don't aim.
| 3comment
|
4236 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I don't think Maus is a very good source. A good book to be sure but I'm not so sure on its credibility as a historical source. | 3comment
|
4237 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Why? Artillery aren't precision. The noise and fog of war can cause friendly fire casualties from small arms, artillery, aircraft...
Although honestly this whole discussion is going to be pretty sketchy because it's all very hard to prove. | 3comment
|
4238 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4239 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I believe that 20% is possible, but the site you linked is not a source at all. | 0support
|
4240 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | It is as credible as any other secondary source. | 3comment
|
4241 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4242 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4243 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4244 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Isn't the term American riflemen referring to Marines, making those arguments about their duties etc null? | 3comment
|
4245 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4246 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Also, Grossman cherry picks his battles. He commonly claims that artillery and other crew served weapons do the majority of killing even in a direct action, yet one can with very little trouble find several battles where one or both sides had little trouble inflicting terrific casualties on the other using accurate and deliberate fire, without artillery being involved. The Battle of Inkerman would be my favourite example. | 3comment
|
4247 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | This is a great answer. I have read all 3 books you mention, discussed it with professors and veterans. Many people agree that his number is either fabricated or based off a "gut feeling."
What is important about Marshal's work is that it brings to light much more than just the firing rate. There are whole sections on command and training that have been accepted and incorporated into modern training.
For Grossman, I feel like his point was a bit weak. Basing your work on already shaky research makes it hard to come to a clear and concise point. Linking violent video games to aggressive behaviour is popular and sells copies, but that might just be my biased interpretation of things. Like /u/kombatminipig said, he is very selective in his evidence.
Finally Engen. All I can say is that he is a top notch academic, and *Canadians Against Fire* is a solid piece of work.
| 1deny
|
4248 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | This is not true. Maus, or any other historical fiction, is not an acceptable source on Askhistorians. | 1deny
|
4249 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | The rounds fired statistic isn't necessarily worthwhile to backup your claim here. You have to understand that seing a target at engagement ranges (100m to 300m) is actually quite hard, especially in a conflict like Vietnam with all the vegetation. You are trained to overwhelm the enemy with fire support (which leads to suppression) and you don't always aim at a target accurately, more just at muzzle flashes or dust being kicked up etc. Basically where you think the target is you shoot. | 3comment
|
4250 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | *Acts of War* by Richard Holmes also references Marshall's work and is in turn referenced by Grossman. I think Holmes presents a far more rounded view of the infantry soldier's experience and does a much better job of analysing why soldiers fight (or not) and the effect that it has on them. It is full of examples of counter-intuitive behaviour and emphasises that once battle is joined the situation is so chaotic that typical predictions of human behaviour do not hold true. Who would have thought that a large number of Argentinian soldiers at Goose Green would have responded to bombardment by getting into their sleeping bags?
The major problems with this whole subject area is that there is not a continuous stream of armed actions which can be directly observed by psychologists and, in common with the majority of social research, it is impossible to control for the relevant variables:
> "Everyone stop! OK, now I want Smoggins to stand up and let’s see if Gruber over there fires at him."
Almost everything in this area is laced with bias. Soldiers don't want to be seen as cowards, commanders want to believe their men are good fighters, very few people understand what battle is actually like, very few psychologists are soldiers, very few soldiers are psychologists and it is very rare to find scholars with relevant military experience who can combine academic rigour in both history and psychology. *On the Psychology of Military Incompetence* by Norman Dixon is a good example: Dixon was a Major in the Royal Engineers and an esteemed psychologist, but the historical section of his book is extremely suspect - especially his treatment of World War One.
Against this backdrop I see Marshall's and Grossman's works as important contributions to a poorly studied area in which no one can produce any definitive research. What is not in any doubt is that western militaries have gone to great lengths since the end of World War Two to develop sophisticated, realistic training environments to prepare soldiers for battle and develop instinctive responses to stimuli: in effect to stop the soldier from thinking. | 3comment
|
4251 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | > But I must say that it's hard to figure out the motivations for suppressive fire, it could be caused by combat stress or opposing enemy suppressive fire causing soldiers to , or it could be a result of a psychological factor that results in people to avoid aiming directly at an enemy (few people want to kill another person).
There's also the fundamental role that it plays in "fire and maneuver" tactics. One group of soldiers, firing from cover, works to get as much lead flying in the general direction of the opposition in an attempt to hinder their ability to fire on another group of their comrades that are relocating elsewhere. It's basically meant to be psychological, discouraging the enemy from doing anything more active than taking cover. | 3comment
|
4252 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | The term "riflemen" can be applied to everyone with a rifle. I believe you are thinking of the phrase "Every marine is a rifleman". While that is true, the reverse is not (Not every rifleman is a marine). | 3comment
|
4253 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Firstly, no, "riflemen" is not specific to the Marines.
Secondly, I suspect you're referring to "every Marine is a rifleman first." This does not mean that the Marines consist of no role but infantry riflemen, but only that Marines of all roles are expected to be competent to effectively engage in combat with a rifle. The Marines still have people performing all the different duties that any other branch does. | 1deny
|
4254 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | > Who would have thought that a large number of Argentinian soldiers at Goose Green would have responded to bombardment by getting into their sleeping bags?
What on earth? | 3comment
|
4255 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I'll have to hunt out the exact passage if you want more gen, but despite having better places to take cover they resorted to using sleeping bags. Remember that these were poorly trained conscripts. not professional soldiers. | 3comment
|
4256 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | In other words, all those bullets went somewhere? | 3comment
|
4257 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Sleeping bags are comforting, and a bombardment can be *really* scary. Also, there were accusations of incredible negligent and shoddy leadership on the Argentinian side (there were trials regarding to extremely poor treatment of the conscripts fairly recently), which would explain very poor reactions to incoming fire. [Der Speigel article on the accusations](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/argentina-s-falklands-war-veterans-cannon-fodder-in-a-war-we-couldn-t-win-a-475287.html)
In general, people do not act rationally when put under sudden and extreme stress, especially if there isn't any stable presence to guide their reactions. If your commander is telling you to get to bunkers, directing you to positions, and acting like he's still in control of the situation, you're going to have a much better chance of reacting well. Absent or poor leadership? You're now scared, and have no idea what to do in this new, scary situation. | 3comment
|
4258 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [deleted] | 3comment
|
4259 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Above all, the Allied infantry was more than willing to lay fire at their oncoming Russian counterparts with devastating accuracy, which runs counter to Grossman's entire thesis. | 3comment
|
4260 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | It's also talking about "at an exposed enemy soldier". Meaning that pointing in the general direction of the enemy doesn't count. But, per an earlier comment, the soldier can still be firing their weapon and therefore using up ammunition and causing wear on their gun barrel. | 3comment
|
4261 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | As far as I know that term usually applies to the lack of knowledge of enemy unit positions rather than battlefield confusion. | 3comment
|
4262 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Could someone track down the records of ammunition given to each soldier before and after each battle and from there find out how many soldiers fired their weapons? Or do those records not exist? | 2query
|
4263 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | If the records did exist, they wouldn't prove that the soldiers fired their weapons at the enemy, just that they were fired at all. | 3comment
|
4264 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I'd agree it's not an acceptable academic source, but I wouldn't call it historical fiction. The story it tells is the actual story of a real person, Vladek Spiegelman, based on interviews conducted by the author (which is also in the book). The story isn't historical fiction.
But it uses a storytelling format that is more typical of a fictional text, and is a graphic novel. Ultimately it's a story, not a historical text. | 3comment
|
4265 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | > Marshall's work, wherein he makes the claim that 75% of soldiers do not fire on the enemy, was based on post-combat interviews with soldiers, but no record of any questions about the ratio of fire exists.
Tough to extrapolate onto the soldiers KIA who would likely have had a far higher ratio. | 3comment
|
4266 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | [removed] | 3comment
|
4267 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | An interesting thing to consider. | 3comment
|
4268 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | I feel like Grossman would argue that the ammo was discarded, or given to the few that were firing, and that everyone then lied about where it went. Because camaraderie. | 3comment
|
4269 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | >That was my point. I'm just saying it's probably a bit more likely that it isn't that people don't shoot, but that people do shoot but don't aim.
Well, that's Grossman's point, too, but neither of you have any evidence to back it up, AFAIK. | 3comment
|
4270 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | You could also check the guns to determine if they'd been fired. Soldiers trading weapons to hide the fact that some aren't doing their jobs seems unreasonably complicated. | 3comment
|
4271 | How much truth is there in the statement that "Only 15%-20% of actually soldiers fired their weapons in WW2?" | Well, we can't check the guns of WWII soldiers now, and I would be surprised to find a primary source on that suitable for statistical analysis.
Ammo consumption would be possible to find sources on, I'm just not sure how fine grained it would be. Probably down to battalion level at least, maybe company, probably not platoon. | 3comment
|
4272 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Every government official, especially in DC, "profits" off taxpayer money.
He's just taking it to the most extreme point, and we allow it.
He's making systematic flaws obvious to us. | 3comment
|
4273 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Sneaky bastard. | 3comment
|
4274 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | What is the source on this? | 3comment
|
4275 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | feelings | 3comment
|
4276 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Butthurt ones at that. | 3comment
|
4277 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | [deleted] | 3comment
|
4278 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | I think he's the first president doing it while in office. | 3comment
|
4279 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | you must have a really short memory | 3comment
|
4280 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | [deleted] | 3comment
|
4281 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | That is literally not a source, that is Niamh McIntyre's **OPINION** | 3comment
|
4282 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | which president actually owns a business while in office? | 3comment
|
4283 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | which ones didn't? | 3comment
|
4284 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Does Dick Cheney and Halliburton count? He was VP, buy still. | 3comment
|
4285 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | >He's probably the first US president to actively profit on tax payer money while in office.
You're either not serious, or you're a young grasshopper... | 3comment
|
4286 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | none of them did while in office
Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm. | 3comment
|
4287 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | edit he wasn't CEO (of Hallburton) from 2000-2008
| 3comment
|
4288 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | One millisecond of research brings many results. Let's start with George Washington https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-22/like-donald-trump-george-washington-had-business-interests | 3comment
|
4289 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | well, if George Washington did it.... | 3comment
|
4290 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | ...then you should go back and correct your record in your original post. | 3comment
|
4291 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | But he was from 2001-2009? I don't get what distinction you are making. | 3comment
|
4292 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000. As vice president, he argued that this step removed any conflict of interest | 3comment
|
4293 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Nope, she cites actual statistics. | 3comment
|
4294 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Literally none, claiming security detail costs more, when these guys are on a salary, is stupid beyond belief. | 3comment
|
4295 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | [deleted] | 3comment
|
4296 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | Awesome, source that claim then.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ill wait | 3comment
|
4297 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | > Mr Trump has spent seven weekends at Mar-a-Lago since taking office ten weeks ago. It is estimated that each of these trips costs at least $3 million (£2.4 million), covering the President’s extensive security detail.
I was actually wrong, but my overall point remains correct. It seems to say that the security detail has more people in it on trips outside the White House, which makes plenty of sense. They also do have to cover the cost of having those people in the resort as opposed to regular paying customers(this part is just sound business logic). | 3comment
|
4298 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | No way a sitting president should be allowed to donate! | 3comment
|
4299 | Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | >It is estimated | 3comment
|