You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Blockchain Bullying - A New Low | Petty Tyrant’s True Colors Are Showing

in Informationwar3 years ago

No offense, but your comprehension of strategy is...er...lacking.

If you intend to take the fight, I would accept that you play by your opponent's rules

Big mistake.
Ask the french in WW2 , when 'blitzkrieg' was enacted - they just didn't play by the agreed rules of war - rules the opponent laid out.
Pesky Germans!
....Ergo - the premise of finding allies to matching voting power is null.
The conflict can never work in the favor of the lower voting power. If the opponent is par tof cabal with 10 million HP (as they do), it can never work.
When 'the enemy' has tanks, and aircraft, and guided missiles - _asymmetric warfare is the answer....(See the Taliban in Afghanistan as an obvious example - there are multitudes... Vietnam, the french resistance..the list goes on...).

(whispers... 'operation Erika'...observe).

Sort:  

No offense,

no offense taken.

but your comprehension of strategy is...er...lacking.

Obviously. After all, I'm just the one who encourages contradiction of the adage that you have to take up the fight by pointing to something that obviously doesn't work, but lingers between the lines. I'm with you on the strength of arms. To take this to mean only to defeat with equal strength of arms, precisely what is taken to mean victory in this context, can also be taken to mean the opposite.

Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead. If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe. After all, the Germans have lost the big war, even though they had victory in the small ones. If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them. But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.

Not playing by the rules, if you can do that, go ahead

Have you read 'the rules for radicals', (saul alinsky)
I'd highly recommend it (free pdf online)

If asymmetric warfare works without collateral damage and the war is won, I would be in awe.

You never tie your own arm behind your back before getting into the boxing ring - that's stoopid..lol
note: I don't know of a single historical conflict - asymmetrical or otherwise, without collateral damage. It's the nature of war.
In terms of this current disagreement, I'd count the cutting off of my granddaughters education as collateral damage (part of my rewards were allocated towards that purpose)

(How I chose to get around the problem caused, is neither here not there).

If you can't find the guerrillas, you can of course bomb the whole area, then you will most likely catch them.

Incorrect - you'd be unlikely to catch them.

....But you risk to lose the support of the locals who may have given you a hiding place and a warm meal.

...too much aggression by the tyrants always results in the local populations finding resolve to counter them and aid the rebels .
It only takes a tiny % to make this relevant...(i.e less than 1% of a population)

Have you read 'the rules for radicals', (saul alinsky)

No, I haven't, thanks, maybe I'll look into it.

I don't know of a single historical conflict - asymmetrical or otherwise, without collateral damage. It's the nature of war.

Good, I was waiting for this answer.

In terms of this current disagreement, I'd count the cutting off of my granddaughters education as collateral damage (part of my rewards were allocated towards that purpose)

It will be interesting to see what your grand daughter will have to say to it when she is an adult.

Incorrect - you'd be unlikely to catch them.

Provide me with a good story, please. One of which it is said to be true.

It only takes a tiny % to make this relevant...(i.e less than 1% of a population)

Then, we are one a good way, I suppose.

It will be interesting to see what your grand daughter will have to say to it when she is an adult.

Why on earth would she even get to know about it?
(her job is an her education, mine is providing the resources for it - I can't imagine why I'd ever explain any of this to her).

Provide me with a good story, please. One of which it is said to be true.

Vietnam and the carpet bombings/agent orange deforestation.
Intended to inflict causalities and demoralize - but only added resolve to the viet-cong army and the villagers who helped to keep them supplied.
(The went underground, literally).

Why on earth would she even get to know about it?
(her job is an her education, mine is providing the resources for it - I can't imagine why I'd ever explain any of this to her).

I was also thinking of my son (and other kids I know). I am not telling him anything about my struggles or losses, either. Nevertheless he will get glimpses here and there, through comments from family influencing people who visit or talk to each other, not expecting a child to listen or understand what's going on. Through phone calls or curses made etc. etc.

I talked to the adults after I was perceived as mature enough to ask them about their experiences. Decades after the nest protection for me was long over.