<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_1638229</id>
	<title>Behind the Scenes With America's Drone Pilots</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255540860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"As President Obama meets with advisors on an Afghanistan strategy today (who are now leaning more toward Joe Biden's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/14biden.html">more-drones policy</a>), and even as <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/qaeda-drones-suck-but-spies-are-worse/">Al Qaeda claims</a> it's not all that scared of drones, the new issue of Esquire takes <a href="http://www.esquire.com/features/unmanned-aircraft-1109">the first real in-depth look at the American military's UAV build-up</a>. Defense geek Brian Mockenhaupt spends some time on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as back at the Pentagon, where the pilots ('more like snipers than fighter pilots') are playing a kind of role-playing game, getting to know terrorists' daily ins and outs. Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future, eh?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " As President Obama meets with advisors on an Afghanistan strategy today ( who are now leaning more toward Joe Biden 's more-drones policy ) , and even as Al Qaeda claims it 's not all that scared of drones , the new issue of Esquire takes the first real in-depth look at the American military 's UAV build-up .
Defense geek Brian Mockenhaupt spends some time on the ground in Afghanistan , as well as back at the Pentagon , where the pilots ( 'more like snipers than fighter pilots ' ) are playing a kind of role-playing game , getting to know terrorists ' daily ins and outs .
Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future , eh ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "As President Obama meets with advisors on an Afghanistan strategy today (who are now leaning more toward Joe Biden's more-drones policy), and even as Al Qaeda claims it's not all that scared of drones, the new issue of Esquire takes the first real in-depth look at the American military's UAV build-up.
Defense geek Brian Mockenhaupt spends some time on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as back at the Pentagon, where the pilots ('more like snipers than fighter pilots') are playing a kind of role-playing game, getting to know terrorists' daily ins and outs.
Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future, eh?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752697</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1255533660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Star Trek, Season 1, Episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek , Season 1 , Episode 23 , " A Taste of Armageddon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek, Season 1, Episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747855</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And just to add more stuff, while a drone attacks usually there are no journalists to report abuses or wrong attacks on civilians, i.e. the only data available after an attack would be what the drone cameras sent back, which of course would likely be classified or doctored to hide any wrongdoing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just to add more stuff , while a drone attacks usually there are no journalists to report abuses or wrong attacks on civilians , i.e .
the only data available after an attack would be what the drone cameras sent back , which of course would likely be classified or doctored to hide any wrongdoing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just to add more stuff, while a drone attacks usually there are no journalists to report abuses or wrong attacks on civilians, i.e.
the only data available after an attack would be what the drone cameras sent back, which of course would likely be classified or doctored to hide any wrongdoing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750485</id>
	<title>Cowards?</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1255517340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By this definition, then the US Air Force of WWII was cowardly, especially the firebombing campaigns towards the end of the war in Germany and the nuclear bombs in Japan. When the crossbow was first widely introduced, the Pope tried to ban them because they were unchivalrous and cowardly. The people who attacked the Marines barracks in Beirut during the 80s and the American warship in Yemen were still branded as terrorists, despite attacking military targets. The attack on the Pentagon during 9/11 was also branded as a terrorist act. In Australia, a group of people were arrested as terrorists for planning to attack a military camp, also a valid military target. The truth is that, it is convenient for governments to label anyone they don't like as terrorists. I am not condoning attacks on civilians, whether by irregulars or by regular military.

Regarding these drones, as they become more prevalent, countermeasures will be devised, you can bet on it. There already exist jammers that can interfere with the drones guidance systems. I predict that ECM measures will be devised to block/mislead the telecommunication linkage of the drones with its controllers. I also predict that "interceptor" drones will be invented that will loiter over the defended target and intercept incoming attack drones. Barrage balloons that interfere with sensors and radar might also make a comeback.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By this definition , then the US Air Force of WWII was cowardly , especially the firebombing campaigns towards the end of the war in Germany and the nuclear bombs in Japan .
When the crossbow was first widely introduced , the Pope tried to ban them because they were unchivalrous and cowardly .
The people who attacked the Marines barracks in Beirut during the 80s and the American warship in Yemen were still branded as terrorists , despite attacking military targets .
The attack on the Pentagon during 9/11 was also branded as a terrorist act .
In Australia , a group of people were arrested as terrorists for planning to attack a military camp , also a valid military target .
The truth is that , it is convenient for governments to label anyone they do n't like as terrorists .
I am not condoning attacks on civilians , whether by irregulars or by regular military .
Regarding these drones , as they become more prevalent , countermeasures will be devised , you can bet on it .
There already exist jammers that can interfere with the drones guidance systems .
I predict that ECM measures will be devised to block/mislead the telecommunication linkage of the drones with its controllers .
I also predict that " interceptor " drones will be invented that will loiter over the defended target and intercept incoming attack drones .
Barrage balloons that interfere with sensors and radar might also make a comeback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this definition, then the US Air Force of WWII was cowardly, especially the firebombing campaigns towards the end of the war in Germany and the nuclear bombs in Japan.
When the crossbow was first widely introduced, the Pope tried to ban them because they were unchivalrous and cowardly.
The people who attacked the Marines barracks in Beirut during the 80s and the American warship in Yemen were still branded as terrorists, despite attacking military targets.
The attack on the Pentagon during 9/11 was also branded as a terrorist act.
In Australia, a group of people were arrested as terrorists for planning to attack a military camp, also a valid military target.
The truth is that, it is convenient for governments to label anyone they don't like as terrorists.
I am not condoning attacks on civilians, whether by irregulars or by regular military.
Regarding these drones, as they become more prevalent, countermeasures will be devised, you can bet on it.
There already exist jammers that can interfere with the drones guidance systems.
I predict that ECM measures will be devised to block/mislead the telecommunication linkage of the drones with its controllers.
I also predict that "interceptor" drones will be invented that will loiter over the defended target and intercept incoming attack drones.
Barrage balloons that interfere with sensors and radar might also make a comeback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747739</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties.</i></p><p>I'm pretty sure that was the intent of all inventions developed for wartime use.</p><p>From the spear, the longbow, musket, and machine gun... The intent and purpose was to give your side the benefit of being able to put the enema at "arms length" (so to say) and put you on the side less likely to die.</p><p>I mean having people kamikaze their aircraft into targets might be more cost effective in the short term, but the point of making weapons was to kill the other side more effectively by putting your side at less risk.</p><p>Just a note...</p><p>Its really been the US doctrine since WWII whereas the Russians, Japanese, and Germans generals would still order suicidal attacks on targets for bravery where the US forces would just bomb the crap out of it, shell it with more artillery than needed, call in more air strikes, and then have the infantry move in forward with tanks in front of them. The tactics work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...given the serious topic , but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy : a war without casualties.I 'm pretty sure that was the intent of all inventions developed for wartime use.From the spear , the longbow , musket , and machine gun... The intent and purpose was to give your side the benefit of being able to put the enema at " arms length " ( so to say ) and put you on the side less likely to die.I mean having people kamikaze their aircraft into targets might be more cost effective in the short term , but the point of making weapons was to kill the other side more effectively by putting your side at less risk.Just a note...Its really been the US doctrine since WWII whereas the Russians , Japanese , and Germans generals would still order suicidal attacks on targets for bravery where the US forces would just bomb the crap out of it , shell it with more artillery than needed , call in more air strikes , and then have the infantry move in forward with tanks in front of them .
The tactics work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties.I'm pretty sure that was the intent of all inventions developed for wartime use.From the spear, the longbow, musket, and machine gun... The intent and purpose was to give your side the benefit of being able to put the enema at "arms length" (so to say) and put you on the side less likely to die.I mean having people kamikaze their aircraft into targets might be more cost effective in the short term, but the point of making weapons was to kill the other side more effectively by putting your side at less risk.Just a note...Its really been the US doctrine since WWII whereas the Russians, Japanese, and Germans generals would still order suicidal attacks on targets for bravery where the US forces would just bomb the crap out of it, shell it with more artillery than needed, call in more air strikes, and then have the infantry move in forward with tanks in front of them.
The tactics work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748231</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255550100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But a thousand drones, each armed differently, painted to look fierce, might.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a thousand drones , each armed differently , painted to look fierce , might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a thousand drones, each armed differently, painted to look fierce, might.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</id>
	<title>why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're bad because one of the reasons people, soldiers included, don't like war is due to the risk of being killed. If you remove that you also remove the only motivation to stop a war or just not start it. The geek in me loves the tech involved in drones development (minus the weaponry) but my human half is scaried as hell because they represent one more step towards an endless war scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're bad because one of the reasons people , soldiers included , do n't like war is due to the risk of being killed .
If you remove that you also remove the only motivation to stop a war or just not start it .
The geek in me loves the tech involved in drones development ( minus the weaponry ) but my human half is scaried as hell because they represent one more step towards an endless war scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're bad because one of the reasons people, soldiers included, don't like war is due to the risk of being killed.
If you remove that you also remove the only motivation to stop a war or just not start it.
The geek in me loves the tech involved in drones development (minus the weaponry) but my human half is scaried as hell because they represent one more step towards an endless war scenario.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750865</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1255519680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You gotta wait a few more years for the Mayan calendar to expire in 2012 and the awakening happens. Funny how that worked out, huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You got ta wait a few more years for the Mayan calendar to expire in 2012 and the awakening happens .
Funny how that worked out , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You gotta wait a few more years for the Mayan calendar to expire in 2012 and the awakening happens.
Funny how that worked out, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750129</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1255515420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start by trying to get a job at Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Insitu or any of the other companies making UASs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start by trying to get a job at Northrop Grumman , Boeing , Insitu or any of the other companies making UASs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start by trying to get a job at Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Insitu or any of the other companies making UASs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749485</id>
	<title>Re:Why hire remote pilots?</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1255512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The aliens already abducted our top videogame players in the eightees: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/</a> [imdb.com]<br>OTOH, there weren't any wall-hacks back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The aliens already abducted our top videogame players in the eightees : http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/ [ imdb.com ] OTOH , there were n't any wall-hacks back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aliens already abducted our top videogame players in the eightees: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/ [imdb.com]OTOH, there weren't any wall-hacks back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748005</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bring up good points.  The Afghani people want security.  The Taliban gave them security.  The Taliban defeated the Russians.  Up until 9/11, the Afghani people weren't dealing with war on a day to day basis.  The Taliban are the force in Afghanistan.  They have the popular support of the people.  They are providing the services to the people.  It's absolutely insane to think that the United States and NATO can dislodge al Qaeda and separate them from the Taliban.  Mullah Omar and the Taliban stood strong next to bin Laden and al Qaeda when it seemed like the United States was going to wipe them out.  Here we are 8 years later and the Taliban are stronger than ever.  If they didn't give up supporting al Qaeda when they were threatened with losing it all, there is no way they are going to give up on al Qaeda now that it's obvious they're winning.</p><p>As another poster mentioned, the whole point of keeping American troops in Afghanistan is to expand the empire.  We need a presence in Central Asia to mitigate Russian and Chinese influence.  We need access to the resources.  al Qaeda and the Taliban are just excuse for us to be there.  We lose more people in traffic accidents every year than died on 9/11, but we aren't declaring a war on automobiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring up good points .
The Afghani people want security .
The Taliban gave them security .
The Taliban defeated the Russians .
Up until 9/11 , the Afghani people were n't dealing with war on a day to day basis .
The Taliban are the force in Afghanistan .
They have the popular support of the people .
They are providing the services to the people .
It 's absolutely insane to think that the United States and NATO can dislodge al Qaeda and separate them from the Taliban .
Mullah Omar and the Taliban stood strong next to bin Laden and al Qaeda when it seemed like the United States was going to wipe them out .
Here we are 8 years later and the Taliban are stronger than ever .
If they did n't give up supporting al Qaeda when they were threatened with losing it all , there is no way they are going to give up on al Qaeda now that it 's obvious they 're winning.As another poster mentioned , the whole point of keeping American troops in Afghanistan is to expand the empire .
We need a presence in Central Asia to mitigate Russian and Chinese influence .
We need access to the resources .
al Qaeda and the Taliban are just excuse for us to be there .
We lose more people in traffic accidents every year than died on 9/11 , but we are n't declaring a war on automobiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring up good points.
The Afghani people want security.
The Taliban gave them security.
The Taliban defeated the Russians.
Up until 9/11, the Afghani people weren't dealing with war on a day to day basis.
The Taliban are the force in Afghanistan.
They have the popular support of the people.
They are providing the services to the people.
It's absolutely insane to think that the United States and NATO can dislodge al Qaeda and separate them from the Taliban.
Mullah Omar and the Taliban stood strong next to bin Laden and al Qaeda when it seemed like the United States was going to wipe them out.
Here we are 8 years later and the Taliban are stronger than ever.
If they didn't give up supporting al Qaeda when they were threatened with losing it all, there is no way they are going to give up on al Qaeda now that it's obvious they're winning.As another poster mentioned, the whole point of keeping American troops in Afghanistan is to expand the empire.
We need a presence in Central Asia to mitigate Russian and Chinese influence.
We need access to the resources.
al Qaeda and the Taliban are just excuse for us to be there.
We lose more people in traffic accidents every year than died on 9/11, but we aren't declaring a war on automobiles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750751</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255519080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the one where humanity deployed robots against the Antichrist on the plains of Armageddon...  Only to have the <i>robots</i> taken to heaven after their victory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the one where humanity deployed robots against the Antichrist on the plains of Armageddon... Only to have the robots taken to heaven after their victory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the one where humanity deployed robots against the Antichrist on the plains of Armageddon...  Only to have the robots taken to heaven after their victory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747475</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fear factor isn't from noise.  It's from never seeing what platform delivered the munition.  You sit a drone up at 25-30k feet, the target wont ever hear it or see it.  The survivors of an attack only know that the hand of God came down upon them without any warning, no sound, and their buddies got vaporized.  THIS is where you get the fear factor.  The knowledge that it could come at any time, and there is no way to know when.  In fact, you almost have to assume that there is a drone over you at all times, and that all it would take is the push of a button to wipe you out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fear factor is n't from noise .
It 's from never seeing what platform delivered the munition .
You sit a drone up at 25-30k feet , the target wont ever hear it or see it .
The survivors of an attack only know that the hand of God came down upon them without any warning , no sound , and their buddies got vaporized .
THIS is where you get the fear factor .
The knowledge that it could come at any time , and there is no way to know when .
In fact , you almost have to assume that there is a drone over you at all times , and that all it would take is the push of a button to wipe you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fear factor isn't from noise.
It's from never seeing what platform delivered the munition.
You sit a drone up at 25-30k feet, the target wont ever hear it or see it.
The survivors of an attack only know that the hand of God came down upon them without any warning, no sound, and their buddies got vaporized.
THIS is where you get the fear factor.
The knowledge that it could come at any time, and there is no way to know when.
In fact, you almost have to assume that there is a drone over you at all times, and that all it would take is the push of a button to wipe you out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747643</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is the bigger coward? The one who straps the bomb to himself and kills innocents. He won't have to face the consequences of his actions when he's dead.</p><p>The person piloting the drone will have to wrestle with the thought that maybe innocent lives were lost as a result of his or her actions.</p><p>Sorry. The "stupid bomb" (suicide bomber) is the coward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is the bigger coward ?
The one who straps the bomb to himself and kills innocents .
He wo n't have to face the consequences of his actions when he 's dead.The person piloting the drone will have to wrestle with the thought that maybe innocent lives were lost as a result of his or her actions.Sorry .
The " stupid bomb " ( suicide bomber ) is the coward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is the bigger coward?
The one who straps the bomb to himself and kills innocents.
He won't have to face the consequences of his actions when he's dead.The person piloting the drone will have to wrestle with the thought that maybe innocent lives were lost as a result of his or her actions.Sorry.
The "stupid bomb" (suicide bomber) is the coward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748355</id>
	<title>History shows</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1255550520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of your air or naval power.....you'll always need a guy with a rifle and bayonet physically occupying a piece of real estate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of your air or naval power.....you 'll always need a guy with a rifle and bayonet physically occupying a piece of real estate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of your air or naval power.....you'll always need a guy with a rifle and bayonet physically occupying a piece of real estate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747499</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, a war where air power achieves long term goals alone - sure a hell of a lot of the Yugoslav conflict was resolved in the air, until you realize that neither side took any long term losses from it - Serbia seemingly lost a tank force twice the size of what it even had and its entire airforce, and months after the peace it was operational again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , a war where air power achieves long term goals alone - sure a hell of a lot of the Yugoslav conflict was resolved in the air , until you realize that neither side took any long term losses from it - Serbia seemingly lost a tank force twice the size of what it even had and its entire airforce , and months after the peace it was operational again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, a war where air power achieves long term goals alone - sure a hell of a lot of the Yugoslav conflict was resolved in the air, until you realize that neither side took any long term losses from it - Serbia seemingly lost a tank force twice the size of what it even had and its entire airforce, and months after the peace it was operational again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747883</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1255548660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... not inspiring to join<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Spell-checker gone bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... not inspiring to join .. . Spell-checker gone bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... not inspiring to join ...
Spell-checker gone bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747033</id>
	<title>U.S. government corruption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>U.S. government: Everything for killing, as little as possible for anything else. Killing and making the instruments of killing gives easy profits, partly because the contracts are largely secret.

<br> <br>The U.S. government is VERY corrupt, but U.S. citizens continue hiding from that fact.

<br> <br>As someone else said, the U.S. government's activities encourage other people to make drones. Soon that will be a common new threat. The rich people won't care, of course, since they will life in a radar-protected, drone-free area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S. government : Everything for killing , as little as possible for anything else .
Killing and making the instruments of killing gives easy profits , partly because the contracts are largely secret .
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt , but U.S. citizens continue hiding from that fact .
As someone else said , the U.S. government 's activities encourage other people to make drones .
Soon that will be a common new threat .
The rich people wo n't care , of course , since they will life in a radar-protected , drone-free area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U.S. government: Everything for killing, as little as possible for anything else.
Killing and making the instruments of killing gives easy profits, partly because the contracts are largely secret.
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt, but U.S. citizens continue hiding from that fact.
As someone else said, the U.S. government's activities encourage other people to make drones.
Soon that will be a common new threat.
The rich people won't care, of course, since they will life in a radar-protected, drone-free area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748049</id>
	<title>Only 1/2 of Americans want that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other half want a war with ONLY American casualties</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other half want a war with ONLY American casualties  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other half want a war with ONLY American casualties
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747413</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1255546680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.<br>-Patton<br> <br>But it seems like he never actually said that, but its a damn good quote.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country .
He won it by making the other poor , dumb bastard die for his country.-Patton But it seems like he never actually said that , but its a damn good quote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.-Patton But it seems like he never actually said that, but its a damn good quote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29768615</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1255707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup.  And by the way, how much do you want to bet all this is coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
And by the way , how much do you want to bet all this is coming soon to a neighbourhood near you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
And by the way, how much do you want to bet all this is coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748273</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of a SF short story I read a while back (where did I put that anthology book???) of a time in which the only thing left are robots fighting each other, defending two opposing non existent civilizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of a SF short story I read a while back ( where did I put that anthology book ? ? ?
) of a time in which the only thing left are robots fighting each other , defending two opposing non existent civilizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of a SF short story I read a while back (where did I put that anthology book???
) of a time in which the only thing left are robots fighting each other, defending two opposing non existent civilizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</id>
	<title>infernal machines</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1255545360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>By its own definition, the US government is a terrorist regime. It utilizes violence to try to effect political change in other nations. According to Army Counterinsurgency Handbook (authored in part by Gen. Patraeus,) that is a defining characteristic of terrorist entities. The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11... a bunch of Saudi Arabians, based in Florida and European nations, attacked us on 9/11. The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Ladin upon receipt of evidence that he was responsible for the attacks. The US Gov't refused. Today, EVERYONE responsible for 9/11 is DEAD or JAILED, and the US is waging ceaseless terrorist attacks on the Pashtun ethnic group of Pakistan and Afghanistan for NO APPARENT REASON. The usage of terrorist drone strikes, which have killed hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants this year, represents the kind of cowardice nominally associated with the BRAVE fighters of the so-called Taliban which resist the alien occupation of their country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By its own definition , the US government is a terrorist regime .
It utilizes violence to try to effect political change in other nations .
According to Army Counterinsurgency Handbook ( authored in part by Gen. Patraeus , ) that is a defining characteristic of terrorist entities .
The Taliban did n't attack us on 9/11... a bunch of Saudi Arabians , based in Florida and European nations , attacked us on 9/11 .
The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Ladin upon receipt of evidence that he was responsible for the attacks .
The US Gov't refused .
Today , EVERYONE responsible for 9/11 is DEAD or JAILED , and the US is waging ceaseless terrorist attacks on the Pashtun ethnic group of Pakistan and Afghanistan for NO APPARENT REASON .
The usage of terrorist drone strikes , which have killed hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants this year , represents the kind of cowardice nominally associated with the BRAVE fighters of the so-called Taliban which resist the alien occupation of their country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By its own definition, the US government is a terrorist regime.
It utilizes violence to try to effect political change in other nations.
According to Army Counterinsurgency Handbook (authored in part by Gen. Patraeus,) that is a defining characteristic of terrorist entities.
The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11... a bunch of Saudi Arabians, based in Florida and European nations, attacked us on 9/11.
The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Ladin upon receipt of evidence that he was responsible for the attacks.
The US Gov't refused.
Today, EVERYONE responsible for 9/11 is DEAD or JAILED, and the US is waging ceaseless terrorist attacks on the Pashtun ethnic group of Pakistan and Afghanistan for NO APPARENT REASON.
The usage of terrorist drone strikes, which have killed hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants this year, represents the kind of cowardice nominally associated with the BRAVE fighters of the so-called Taliban which resist the alien occupation of their country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748139</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's certainly not fair...</p><p>Those drones carry ordinance and cost a great deal of cash. I'm sure drone pilots face serious repercussions if they write off a drone just as if a pilot writes off a Raptor.</p><p>They require skill to fly. Isn't that what pilots are being paid for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's certainly not fair...Those drones carry ordinance and cost a great deal of cash .
I 'm sure drone pilots face serious repercussions if they write off a drone just as if a pilot writes off a Raptor.They require skill to fly .
Is n't that what pilots are being paid for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's certainly not fair...Those drones carry ordinance and cost a great deal of cash.
I'm sure drone pilots face serious repercussions if they write off a drone just as if a pilot writes off a Raptor.They require skill to fly.
Isn't that what pilots are being paid for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749347</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>bluie-</author>
	<datestamp>1255511820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's better they're not afraid.  If they're afraid, they'll dress up as civilians and suicide bomb checkpoints.  If they're feeling brave and courageous, they'll attempt to set up ambushes/mortar teams/etc, which are easily detected and countered with drones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's better they 're not afraid .
If they 're afraid , they 'll dress up as civilians and suicide bomb checkpoints .
If they 're feeling brave and courageous , they 'll attempt to set up ambushes/mortar teams/etc , which are easily detected and countered with drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's better they're not afraid.
If they're afraid, they'll dress up as civilians and suicide bomb checkpoints.
If they're feeling brave and courageous, they'll attempt to set up ambushes/mortar teams/etc, which are easily detected and countered with drones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748523</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>cjoy</author>
	<datestamp>1255551360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't buy that.  After you've seen a few guys get suddenly vaporized from the sky with no warning, I think you learn fear. A gun may initially look less scary than a giant rock, but folks have come to respect it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy that .
After you 've seen a few guys get suddenly vaporized from the sky with no warning , I think you learn fear .
A gun may initially look less scary than a giant rock , but folks have come to respect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy that.
After you've seen a few guys get suddenly vaporized from the sky with no warning, I think you learn fear.
A gun may initially look less scary than a giant rock, but folks have come to respect it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And lose. You can't *hold* ground with robots or avatars. You can't win hearts and minds. You can't accomplish significant political objectives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And lose .
You ca n't * hold * ground with robots or avatars .
You ca n't win hearts and minds .
You ca n't accomplish significant political objectives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And lose.
You can't *hold* ground with robots or avatars.
You can't win hearts and minds.
You can't accomplish significant political objectives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1255550400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.</p></div><p>They aren't cowards for strapping bombs to their chest.  They are cowards because they tend to go after relatively undefended civilian targets.  Driving a truck bomb into a barracks filled with Marines represents a legitimate act of war.  Blowing up a pizzeria filled with civilians that had no military value is the coward's way out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies , or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.They are n't cowards for strapping bombs to their chest .
They are cowards because they tend to go after relatively undefended civilian targets .
Driving a truck bomb into a barracks filled with Marines represents a legitimate act of war .
Blowing up a pizzeria filled with civilians that had no military value is the coward 's way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.They aren't cowards for strapping bombs to their chest.
They are cowards because they tend to go after relatively undefended civilian targets.
Driving a truck bomb into a barracks filled with Marines represents a legitimate act of war.
Blowing up a pizzeria filled with civilians that had no military value is the coward's way out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750985</id>
	<title>Re:Sex with sheep</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1255520400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"They just don't think we can see them."</i></p><p>Hehe.  I read that in TFA, and I thought "Are we <i>sure</i> it's that they don't think we can see them?  Maybe they're assuming we can!"</p><p>"Hey, American watching from your little plane up in the sky!  Here's what I think of you!  You wanted to see some insurgent action, eh?  Well here you go!"</p><p>Okay probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They just do n't think we can see them. " Hehe .
I read that in TFA , and I thought " Are we sure it 's that they do n't think we can see them ?
Maybe they 're assuming we can !
" " Hey , American watching from your little plane up in the sky !
Here 's what I think of you !
You wanted to see some insurgent action , eh ?
Well here you go !
" Okay probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They just don't think we can see them."Hehe.
I read that in TFA, and I thought "Are we sure it's that they don't think we can see them?
Maybe they're assuming we can!
""Hey, American watching from your little plane up in the sky!
Here's what I think of you!
You wanted to see some insurgent action, eh?
Well here you go!
"Okay probably not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750477</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1255517280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the point of a legitimate act of war is to assert control over the masses.  you can waste time throwing yourself at the most difficult route to get there, or if youre smart you can attack soft targets that register in the hearts and minds of your objectives.  its one reason guerilla warfare is so devastatingly effective, and why it worked for us in the war of 1812.<br> <br>
blowing up a pizzaria is mission accomplished.  afterwards it doesnt matter how many drones you build or hummers you have in the street, because villagers understand collusion with even the most noble, well intentioned and high-tech american forces will result in their son or daughter being turned into flaming dogfood at tomorrows burger king bombing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the point of a legitimate act of war is to assert control over the masses .
you can waste time throwing yourself at the most difficult route to get there , or if youre smart you can attack soft targets that register in the hearts and minds of your objectives .
its one reason guerilla warfare is so devastatingly effective , and why it worked for us in the war of 1812 . blowing up a pizzaria is mission accomplished .
afterwards it doesnt matter how many drones you build or hummers you have in the street , because villagers understand collusion with even the most noble , well intentioned and high-tech american forces will result in their son or daughter being turned into flaming dogfood at tomorrows burger king bombing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the point of a legitimate act of war is to assert control over the masses.
you can waste time throwing yourself at the most difficult route to get there, or if youre smart you can attack soft targets that register in the hearts and minds of your objectives.
its one reason guerilla warfare is so devastatingly effective, and why it worked for us in the war of 1812. 
blowing up a pizzaria is mission accomplished.
afterwards it doesnt matter how many drones you build or hummers you have in the street, because villagers understand collusion with even the most noble, well intentioned and high-tech american forces will result in their son or daughter being turned into flaming dogfood at tomorrows burger king bombing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</id>
	<title>Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be a rigger?</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be a rigger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be a rigger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748159</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1255549860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to deal with that human side of things, what we should do is tell the pilots it is just a training simulation and thier objective is to defeat then enemy in order to pass.  This would remove any guilt from killing real people.  Also, since we all know kids are the best at video games and simulations in general, we could train a whole bunch of kids to do it all for us.  We can put them through some sort of battle school or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to deal with that human side of things , what we should do is tell the pilots it is just a training simulation and thier objective is to defeat then enemy in order to pass .
This would remove any guilt from killing real people .
Also , since we all know kids are the best at video games and simulations in general , we could train a whole bunch of kids to do it all for us .
We can put them through some sort of battle school or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to deal with that human side of things, what we should do is tell the pilots it is just a training simulation and thier objective is to defeat then enemy in order to pass.
This would remove any guilt from killing real people.
Also, since we all know kids are the best at video games and simulations in general, we could train a whole bunch of kids to do it all for us.
We can put them through some sort of battle school or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748457</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1255551000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting? How many innocents have those men killed this year? How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Simple answer: no one has <b>any</b> idea. The people targeted by the drones for extra-judicial assassinations are always and without exception <b>"suspected"</b> "militants" - i.e. people who might militantly oppose US interests, or interests of US sponsored warlords in some way or another. Some might be mass murderers, some merely opposed to their US-appointed "government" or simply enemies of some US informants. Or random bystanders. There is <b>no</b> way to tell.
</p><p>But one thing can be known for certain, the hordes of children killed by the drones were definitely <b>not</b> "targeting" anyone.
</p><p>So the bottom line is this: when you choose to descend to the levels of the atrocities that you accuse your "evil" opponents of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you yourself have become the very evil you claim to fight. Which is clearly the case with the US of A, and which all rational observer have pointed out a long time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting ?
How many innocents have those men killed this year ?
How many weddings , funerals , markets , and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood ?
Simple answer : no one has any idea .
The people targeted by the drones for extra-judicial assassinations are always and without exception " suspected " " militants " - i.e .
people who might militantly oppose US interests , or interests of US sponsored warlords in some way or another .
Some might be mass murderers , some merely opposed to their US-appointed " government " or simply enemies of some US informants .
Or random bystanders .
There is no way to tell .
But one thing can be known for certain , the hordes of children killed by the drones were definitely not " targeting " anyone .
So the bottom line is this : when you choose to descend to the levels of the atrocities that you accuse your " evil " opponents of ... you yourself have become the very evil you claim to fight .
Which is clearly the case with the US of A , and which all rational observer have pointed out a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting?
How many innocents have those men killed this year?
How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood?
Simple answer: no one has any idea.
The people targeted by the drones for extra-judicial assassinations are always and without exception "suspected" "militants" - i.e.
people who might militantly oppose US interests, or interests of US sponsored warlords in some way or another.
Some might be mass murderers, some merely opposed to their US-appointed "government" or simply enemies of some US informants.
Or random bystanders.
There is no way to tell.
But one thing can be known for certain, the hordes of children killed by the drones were definitely not "targeting" anyone.
So the bottom line is this: when you choose to descend to the levels of the atrocities that you accuse your "evil" opponents of ... you yourself have become the very evil you claim to fight.
Which is clearly the case with the US of A, and which all rational observer have pointed out a long time ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748925</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES.</p> </div><p> Not even close. At Waco, the ATF attempted to execute a search warrant on the Branh Dividian compound. The Branch Dividians opened fire from a huge stockpile of automatic weapons killing 4 ATF agents.</p><p>After these murders, the FBI came in and *then* you started seeing millitary-like hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES .
Not even close .
At Waco , the ATF attempted to execute a search warrant on the Branh Dividian compound .
The Branch Dividians opened fire from a huge stockpile of automatic weapons killing 4 ATF agents.After these murders , the FBI came in and * then * you started seeing millitary-like hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES.
Not even close.
At Waco, the ATF attempted to execute a search warrant on the Branh Dividian compound.
The Branch Dividians opened fire from a huge stockpile of automatic weapons killing 4 ATF agents.After these murders, the FBI came in and *then* you started seeing millitary-like hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748443</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1255550940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Air power never wins wars</i> <br>
<br>
Not on its own, no, but you can't win a war without it.<br>
<br>
"The United States relies on the Air Force, and the Air Force has never been the decisive factor in the history of wars." - Saddam Hussein, 1991</htmltext>
<tokenext>Air power never wins wars Not on its own , no , but you ca n't win a war without it .
" The United States relies on the Air Force , and the Air Force has never been the decisive factor in the history of wars .
" - Saddam Hussein , 1991</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air power never wins wars 

Not on its own, no, but you can't win a war without it.
"The United States relies on the Air Force, and the Air Force has never been the decisive factor in the history of wars.
" - Saddam Hussein, 1991</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747593</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1255547400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but wait 'til those terrorists get out the nerve stapler, then watch the drones start running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but wait 'til those terrorists get out the nerve stapler , then watch the drones start running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but wait 'til those terrorists get out the nerve stapler, then watch the drones start running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754453</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255598700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We are nothing like Ancient Rome. If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago. Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line. We've long since forgotten how to do that. More's the pity."</p><p>Don't know much history do you ?<br>The success of the Romans was that they DIDN'T kill all the males, they conscripted them and gave them back semi-autonomy to rule that area in Rome's name. Rome's success then became their success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are nothing like Ancient Rome .
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago .
Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line .
We 've long since forgotten how to do that .
More 's the pity .
" Do n't know much history do you ? The success of the Romans was that they DID N'T kill all the males , they conscripted them and gave them back semi-autonomy to rule that area in Rome 's name .
Rome 's success then became their success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We are nothing like Ancient Rome.
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago.
Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line.
We've long since forgotten how to do that.
More's the pity.
"Don't know much history do you ?The success of the Romans was that they DIDN'T kill all the males, they conscripted them and gave them back semi-autonomy to rule that area in Rome's name.
Rome's success then became their success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749117</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255553880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up...so that all may witness its lack of historical perspective and feel pity for its author, who clearly lives up to his/her name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up...so that all may witness its lack of historical perspective and feel pity for its author , who clearly lives up to his/her name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up...so that all may witness its lack of historical perspective and feel pity for its author, who clearly lives up to his/her name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757707</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Doctor Faustus</author>
	<datestamp>1255623060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't *hold* ground with robots or avatars. You can't win hearts and minds. You can't accomplish significant political objectives.</i><br>I have to think if there is no one local willing to do the ground work in their own country, while we provide support, we have no business being there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't * hold * ground with robots or avatars .
You ca n't win hearts and minds .
You ca n't accomplish significant political objectives.I have to think if there is no one local willing to do the ground work in their own country , while we provide support , we have no business being there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't *hold* ground with robots or avatars.
You can't win hearts and minds.
You can't accomplish significant political objectives.I have to think if there is no one local willing to do the ground work in their own country, while we provide support, we have no business being there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751125</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255521240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq </i></p><p>Huh?! - Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11 and was not actively supporting international terrorism. In Spain the Madrid bombings were carried out because Spain sided with the US. There's also a suggestion that the UK was singled out for the London bombings because the UK fought with the US. The London attacks were carried out by Asians who had been born and bred in the UK, but who still had close ties to family members back home.</p><p>When civilians get killed, their families get angry. A few years down the line, this may make life difficult and unpleasant for all of us. Bringing the war to Iraq may or may not have kept the war out of the US, but it has almost certainly brought the war to Britain and several other countries.</p><p>It's also worth remembering that the Taliban were effectively a product of US interventionism. They weren't commies, therefore they must be good people. Who thought that one up?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq Huh ? !
- Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11 and was not actively supporting international terrorism .
In Spain the Madrid bombings were carried out because Spain sided with the US .
There 's also a suggestion that the UK was singled out for the London bombings because the UK fought with the US .
The London attacks were carried out by Asians who had been born and bred in the UK , but who still had close ties to family members back home.When civilians get killed , their families get angry .
A few years down the line , this may make life difficult and unpleasant for all of us .
Bringing the war to Iraq may or may not have kept the war out of the US , but it has almost certainly brought the war to Britain and several other countries.It 's also worth remembering that the Taliban were effectively a product of US interventionism .
They were n't commies , therefore they must be good people .
Who thought that one up ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq Huh?!
- Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11 and was not actively supporting international terrorism.
In Spain the Madrid bombings were carried out because Spain sided with the US.
There's also a suggestion that the UK was singled out for the London bombings because the UK fought with the US.
The London attacks were carried out by Asians who had been born and bred in the UK, but who still had close ties to family members back home.When civilians get killed, their families get angry.
A few years down the line, this may make life difficult and unpleasant for all of us.
Bringing the war to Iraq may or may not have kept the war out of the US, but it has almost certainly brought the war to Britain and several other countries.It's also worth remembering that the Taliban were effectively a product of US interventionism.
They weren't commies, therefore they must be good people.
Who thought that one up?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</id>
	<title>I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties. I mean, without American casualties, of course. Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...given the serious topic , but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy : a war without casualties .
I mean , without American casualties , of course .
Wishful thinking , whatever technologies you throw at the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties.
I mean, without American casualties, of course.
Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757127</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>MariusBoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see this comparison all the time when talking about the effects of the bomb. It almost seems like the bomb saved lives. It did not. The effect was 200K dead (+-). The alternative to that was not invading Japan (and millions of casualties) but not invading Japan and negotiating peace - that was the rational way out. The dead were caused by America's lack of willingness to accept anything less then unconditional surrender.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this comparison all the time when talking about the effects of the bomb .
It almost seems like the bomb saved lives .
It did not .
The effect was 200K dead ( + - ) .
The alternative to that was not invading Japan ( and millions of casualties ) but not invading Japan and negotiating peace - that was the rational way out .
The dead were caused by America 's lack of willingness to accept anything less then unconditional surrender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this comparison all the time when talking about the effects of the bomb.
It almost seems like the bomb saved lives.
It did not.
The effect was 200K dead (+-).
The alternative to that was not invading Japan (and millions of casualties) but not invading Japan and negotiating peace - that was the rational way out.
The dead were caused by America's lack of willingness to accept anything less then unconditional surrender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752353</id>
	<title>Obligatory Simpsons</title>
	<author>ebydav</author>
	<datestamp>1255530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea .
They will be fought in space , or possibly on top of a very tall mountain .
In either case , most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots .
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear : To build and maintain those robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747075</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting...</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1255545180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too late. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is testing them over <a href="http://www.thehamiltonspectator.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/585885" title="thehamiltonspectator.com">Lake Erie and Ontario</a> [thehamiltonspectator.com], and have been for several years over the Mexican border.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too late .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is testing them over Lake Erie and Ontario [ thehamiltonspectator.com ] , and have been for several years over the Mexican border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too late.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is testing them over Lake Erie and Ontario [thehamiltonspectator.com], and have been for several years over the Mexican border.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751423</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Dave Emami</author>
	<datestamp>1255523640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Accepted how? It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA". But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the continent.</p></div><p>
Most words have multiple definitions, and those definitions are for the most part <i>determined by</i> common usage. In the lack of a specific context, when someone uses a word, listeners assume he means the most common definition. The word used to denote a citizen of the United States is "American" both because that's the word people usually use for that purpose and because that's the purpose for which people usually use that word. I have co-workers who come from Bangalore in the Republic of India. Should I start referring to them as "RoIians" so as not to offend citizens of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which are located on the Indian subcontinent?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this. I used "USian" here as a shortcut, because it is more precise.</p></div><p>The word you're looking for is "asinine", not "precise." It makes you sound like someone arguing vehemently that you must refer to a tomato as a fruit rather than vegetable, as if the botanical definition automatically trumps the culinary one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Accepted how ?
It is true that in common usage " American " came to become a short-hand for " the citizen of USA " .
But " Americans " are , by definition , denizens of America , the continent .
Most words have multiple definitions , and those definitions are for the most part determined by common usage .
In the lack of a specific context , when someone uses a word , listeners assume he means the most common definition .
The word used to denote a citizen of the United States is " American " both because that 's the word people usually use for that purpose and because that 's the purpose for which people usually use that word .
I have co-workers who come from Bangalore in the Republic of India .
Should I start referring to them as " RoIians " so as not to offend citizens of Pakistan and Bangladesh , both of which are located on the Indian subcontinent ? It only underlines my point , as to the self-centred , narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this .
I used " USian " here as a shortcut , because it is more precise.The word you 're looking for is " asinine " , not " precise .
" It makes you sound like someone arguing vehemently that you must refer to a tomato as a fruit rather than vegetable , as if the botanical definition automatically trumps the culinary one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accepted how?
It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA".
But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the continent.
Most words have multiple definitions, and those definitions are for the most part determined by common usage.
In the lack of a specific context, when someone uses a word, listeners assume he means the most common definition.
The word used to denote a citizen of the United States is "American" both because that's the word people usually use for that purpose and because that's the purpose for which people usually use that word.
I have co-workers who come from Bangalore in the Republic of India.
Should I start referring to them as "RoIians" so as not to offend citizens of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which are located on the Indian subcontinent?It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this.
I used "USian" here as a shortcut, because it is more precise.The word you're looking for is "asinine", not "precise.
" It makes you sound like someone arguing vehemently that you must refer to a tomato as a fruit rather than vegetable, as if the botanical definition automatically trumps the culinary one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749819</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>samboneym</author>
	<datestamp>1255513980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is what the counterinsurgency campaign can offer ordinary civilians in Afghanistan. Why would they be suddenly welcomed with open arms. I would guess at best they would receive a sullen hostility. After all foreigners have been bombing the crap out of them for decades. Why would they give a crap what flag the current lot are under or what they're trying to do.</p><p>From an average Afghan's perspective, they have very little to gain from continuing this war or supporting the US. Certainly I don't think it would be obvious to them that they would be able to have a country run according to their wishes, assuming it would even be possible to gain any sort of consensus. In the end I think it's pretty obvious that the US is seen as being just as self serving and indifferent to the well being of Afghani civilians as Al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Each has their own sick agenda and the unfortunate civilians will continue to pay for the foreseeable future.</p><p>When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is what the counterinsurgency campaign can offer ordinary civilians in Afghanistan .
Why would they be suddenly welcomed with open arms .
I would guess at best they would receive a sullen hostility .
After all foreigners have been bombing the crap out of them for decades .
Why would they give a crap what flag the current lot are under or what they 're trying to do.From an average Afghan 's perspective , they have very little to gain from continuing this war or supporting the US .
Certainly I do n't think it would be obvious to them that they would be able to have a country run according to their wishes , assuming it would even be possible to gain any sort of consensus .
In the end I think it 's pretty obvious that the US is seen as being just as self serving and indifferent to the well being of Afghani civilians as Al-Quaeda or the Taliban .
Each has their own sick agenda and the unfortunate civilians will continue to pay for the foreseeable future.When elephants fight , it is the grass that suffers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is what the counterinsurgency campaign can offer ordinary civilians in Afghanistan.
Why would they be suddenly welcomed with open arms.
I would guess at best they would receive a sullen hostility.
After all foreigners have been bombing the crap out of them for decades.
Why would they give a crap what flag the current lot are under or what they're trying to do.From an average Afghan's perspective, they have very little to gain from continuing this war or supporting the US.
Certainly I don't think it would be obvious to them that they would be able to have a country run according to their wishes, assuming it would even be possible to gain any sort of consensus.
In the end I think it's pretty obvious that the US is seen as being just as self serving and indifferent to the well being of Afghani civilians as Al-Quaeda or the Taliban.
Each has their own sick agenda and the unfortunate civilians will continue to pay for the foreseeable future.When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750333</id>
	<title>Newsweek article</title>
	<author>ppanon</author>
	<datestamp>1255516500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newsweek also had an <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/215825" title="newsweek.com">article</a> [newsweek.com] last week on the higher level and political implications of the change in the US Air Force's mission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsweek also had an article [ newsweek.com ] last week on the higher level and political implications of the change in the US Air Force 's mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsweek also had an article [newsweek.com] last week on the higher level and political implications of the change in the US Air Force's mission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755361</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>meyekul</author>
	<datestamp>1255611360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you would sooner surrender to a group of soldiers than a giant robot with laser beams on its forehead?  Seems pretty moot to me, a threat is a threat, and when you think about is there really that much difference between a programmed robot and a brainwashed human?  At least the robots wont be stacking up naked POWs and pointing at their genitals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you would sooner surrender to a group of soldiers than a giant robot with laser beams on its forehead ?
Seems pretty moot to me , a threat is a threat , and when you think about is there really that much difference between a programmed robot and a brainwashed human ?
At least the robots wont be stacking up naked POWs and pointing at their genitals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you would sooner surrender to a group of soldiers than a giant robot with laser beams on its forehead?
Seems pretty moot to me, a threat is a threat, and when you think about is there really that much difference between a programmed robot and a brainwashed human?
At least the robots wont be stacking up naked POWs and pointing at their genitals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748553</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255551480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting? How many innocents have those men killed this year? How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood? The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists. It's even smaller potatoes compared to =any= country's imperialism over 70 years ago.</i></p><p>We were the ones writing them checks in the 1980's simply because we didn't want a secular yet communist Afghanistan.</p><p>Oh... And we overthrew a legally elected socialist government in Iran in the 1950's only to have who we wanted in power replaced with a fanatical religious government and then we paid money and gave weapons to their enemy in Iraq who turned on us with those own weapons we sold them...</p><p>And we still prop up a non-democratic kingdom with money and weapons down there who represses any political dissent with prison and whippings! No wonder they hate us!</p><p>AND YOU SAY WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EAST! We've been mucking around down there for over 50 years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting ?
How many innocents have those men killed this year ?
How many weddings , funerals , markets , and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood ?
The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists .
It 's even smaller potatoes compared to = any = country 's imperialism over 70 years ago.We were the ones writing them checks in the 1980 's simply because we did n't want a secular yet communist Afghanistan.Oh... And we overthrew a legally elected socialist government in Iran in the 1950 's only to have who we wanted in power replaced with a fanatical religious government and then we paid money and gave weapons to their enemy in Iraq who turned on us with those own weapons we sold them...And we still prop up a non-democratic kingdom with money and weapons down there who represses any political dissent with prison and whippings !
No wonder they hate us ! AND YOU SAY WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EAST !
We 've been mucking around down there for over 50 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting?
How many innocents have those men killed this year?
How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood?
The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists.
It's even smaller potatoes compared to =any= country's imperialism over 70 years ago.We were the ones writing them checks in the 1980's simply because we didn't want a secular yet communist Afghanistan.Oh... And we overthrew a legally elected socialist government in Iran in the 1950's only to have who we wanted in power replaced with a fanatical religious government and then we paid money and gave weapons to their enemy in Iraq who turned on us with those own weapons we sold them...And we still prop up a non-democratic kingdom with money and weapons down there who represses any political dissent with prison and whippings!
No wonder they hate us!AND YOU SAY WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EAST!
We've been mucking around down there for over 50 years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750869</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>civilians/citizens are most certainly of great military value<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>for it is the citizens that authorize<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. maintain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and are ultimately the ones responsible for the military actions of their nation state<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there is no such thing as an innocent civilian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>if your country is involved in a military action<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. especially a foreign invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation state or territory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. YOU as a citizen are guilty of waging WAR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. most civilians can and will rationalize away their responsibility<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but it does not change the fact they are guilty of waging WAR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and are NOT innocent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>personally i consider ANYONE who carries and uses a weapon of any sort<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. regardless of rational justification a coward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. be it citizen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. policeman<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. armed guard or soldier it does not matter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. they are all cowards in my eyes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>but some one who straps on a bomb and faces certain death for  what they believe in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. be it rIGHT or wRONG<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in an act of attacking the troops and or citizens of a nation state that is and or has invaded and occupied another nation state or territory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. could be called many things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>but a coward is not one of them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>however<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. people who wage war from thousands of feet up and thousands of miles away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. without any risk to themselves most certainly are cowards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. as is anyone who carries or uses a weapon in the defense of their lives<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>all acts of combat with weapons are acts of terrorism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. no matter which side you are on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it is laughable to call one side terrorists and not the other side in an armed conflict<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>there are no heroes in WeAreRight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and NO ONE is INNOCENT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>civilians/citizens are most certainly of great military value ..for it is the citizens that authorize .. maintain .. support .. and are ultimately the ones responsible for the military actions of their nation state .. there is no such thing as an innocent civilian ..if your country is involved in a military action .. especially a foreign invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation state or territory .. YOU as a citizen are guilty of waging WAR .. most civilians can and will rationalize away their responsibility .. but it does not change the fact they are guilty of waging WAR .. and are NOT innocent ..personally i consider ANYONE who carries and uses a weapon of any sort .. regardless of rational justification a coward .. be it citizen .. policeman .. armed guard or soldier it does not matter .. they are all cowards in my eyes ..but some one who straps on a bomb and faces certain death for what they believe in .. be it rIGHT or wRONG .. in an act of attacking the troops and or citizens of a nation state that is and or has invaded and occupied another nation state or territory .. could be called many things ..but a coward is not one of them ..however .. people who wage war from thousands of feet up and thousands of miles away .. without any risk to themselves most certainly are cowards .. as is anyone who carries or uses a weapon in the defense of their lives ..all acts of combat with weapons are acts of terrorism .. no matter which side you are on .. it is laughable to call one side terrorists and not the other side in an armed conflict ..there are no heroes in WeAreRight .. and NO ONE is INNOCENT . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>civilians/citizens are most certainly of great military value ..for it is the citizens that authorize .. maintain .. support .. and are ultimately the ones responsible for the military actions of their nation state .. there is no such thing as an innocent civilian ..if your country is involved in a military action .. especially a foreign invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation state or territory .. YOU as a citizen are guilty of waging WAR .. most civilians can and will rationalize away their responsibility .. but it does not change the fact they are guilty of waging WAR .. and are NOT innocent ..personally i consider ANYONE who carries and uses a weapon of any sort .. regardless of rational justification a coward .. be it citizen .. policeman .. armed guard or soldier it does not matter .. they are all cowards in my eyes ..but some one who straps on a bomb and faces certain death for  what they believe in .. be it rIGHT or wRONG .. in an act of attacking the troops and or citizens of a nation state that is and or has invaded and occupied another nation state or territory .. could be called many things ..but a coward is not one of them ..however .. people who wage war from thousands of feet up and thousands of miles away .. without any risk to themselves most certainly are cowards .. as is anyone who carries or uses a weapon in the defense of their lives ..all acts of combat with weapons are acts of terrorism .. no matter which side you are on .. it is laughable to call one side terrorists and not the other side in an armed conflict ..there are no heroes in WeAreRight .. and NO ONE is INNOCENT ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</id>
	<title>Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>s31523</author>
	<datestamp>1255545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading this I realize the not-so-obvious benefit of real planes flying around patrolling and bombing the enemy... The fear factor.  As stated in the summary " Al Qaeda claims it's not all that scared of drones", which makes sense, a little spec in the sky orbiting quietly does not put the fear of God, oh sorry Allah, into the enemy.  Get a couple of F35s, A10s or Apaches cruising about voila, fear is back.  Intimidation is back factor in warfare.  Never really thought about that aspect of an all-drone airforce...</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading this I realize the not-so-obvious benefit of real planes flying around patrolling and bombing the enemy... The fear factor .
As stated in the summary " Al Qaeda claims it 's not all that scared of drones " , which makes sense , a little spec in the sky orbiting quietly does not put the fear of God , oh sorry Allah , into the enemy .
Get a couple of F35s , A10s or Apaches cruising about voila , fear is back .
Intimidation is back factor in warfare .
Never really thought about that aspect of an all-drone airforce.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading this I realize the not-so-obvious benefit of real planes flying around patrolling and bombing the enemy... The fear factor.
As stated in the summary " Al Qaeda claims it's not all that scared of drones", which makes sense, a little spec in the sky orbiting quietly does not put the fear of God, oh sorry Allah, into the enemy.
Get a couple of F35s, A10s or Apaches cruising about voila, fear is back.
Intimidation is back factor in warfare.
Never really thought about that aspect of an all-drone airforce...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748259</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1255550280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if I buy the argument that we shouldn't try to make [bad thing] less [bad] because doing so makes [bad thing] more likely to occur.  That argument can be equally applied to developing medical treatments for alcoholic liver disease, metabolic syndrome, or smoking-induced lung cancer.  Also, would it be better for police to not try to stop crimes in progress since that makes them less heinous?  How about safety devices in cars since they might encourage reckless driving?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if I buy the argument that we should n't try to make [ bad thing ] less [ bad ] because doing so makes [ bad thing ] more likely to occur .
That argument can be equally applied to developing medical treatments for alcoholic liver disease , metabolic syndrome , or smoking-induced lung cancer .
Also , would it be better for police to not try to stop crimes in progress since that makes them less heinous ?
How about safety devices in cars since they might encourage reckless driving ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if I buy the argument that we shouldn't try to make [bad thing] less [bad] because doing so makes [bad thing] more likely to occur.
That argument can be equally applied to developing medical treatments for alcoholic liver disease, metabolic syndrome, or smoking-induced lung cancer.
Also, would it be better for police to not try to stop crimes in progress since that makes them less heinous?
How about safety devices in cars since they might encourage reckless driving?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29762169</id>
	<title>Good work, Lieutenant Colonel Barnes (NOT!)</title>
	<author>Mr. Firewall</author>
	<datestamp>1255600200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On his third combat mission after the training, he dropped a Hellfire at the feet of a man who had just planted an IED in Iraq.</p></div><p>Oh, good going, dude... now this slimy terrorist gets to laze around all day in Paradise with his 72 virgins, and I'm stuck down here with my hand wrapped around my, uh, "joy" stick...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : On his third combat mission after the training , he dropped a Hellfire at the feet of a man who had just planted an IED in Iraq.Oh , good going , dude... now this slimy terrorist gets to laze around all day in Paradise with his 72 virgins , and I 'm stuck down here with my hand wrapped around my , uh , " joy " stick.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:On his third combat mission after the training, he dropped a Hellfire at the feet of a man who had just planted an IED in Iraq.Oh, good going, dude... now this slimy terrorist gets to laze around all day in Paradise with his 72 virgins, and I'm stuck down here with my hand wrapped around my, uh, "joy" stick...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750597</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1255518180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should go back to the model of having important people fighting on the front lines. It would discourage war quite a bit I imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should go back to the model of having important people fighting on the front lines .
It would discourage war quite a bit I imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should go back to the model of having important people fighting on the front lines.
It would discourage war quite a bit I imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959</id>
	<title>ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</id>
	<title>Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1255546680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Air power never wins wars, and that is what drones are.  It is important to have boots on the ground, especially in a counterinsurgency campaign.  For most insurgencies, the recruitment pool is the citizenry within the country who are unsatisfied and discontented.  If a counterinsurgent force is relying primarily on impersonal methods such as drones or air power, the local populace will never see or interact with the foot soldiers of the counterinsurgency.  The only way you can beat an insurgency is by interacting with the populace within the country, to galvanize support for the counterinsurgency campaign.  If all you do is bomb people from the air you are going to get eh exact opposite effect. Without boots on the ground, you will not get proper intel.  As such, there is a higher likelihood of collateral damage.  When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had.  You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.  You build up a rapport with people, and they will work with you.  Otherwise, they are more likely to see you as the enemy instead of the insurgents.  It may not be the newest, sexiest piece of technology, but it works.  And you cant be afraid to have people out in harm's way.  You have to have men getting in firefights, so the locals see you actually taking an interest in protecting their towns, their fields, their families.  If this doesn't happen, you will lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Air power never wins wars , and that is what drones are .
It is important to have boots on the ground , especially in a counterinsurgency campaign .
For most insurgencies , the recruitment pool is the citizenry within the country who are unsatisfied and discontented .
If a counterinsurgent force is relying primarily on impersonal methods such as drones or air power , the local populace will never see or interact with the foot soldiers of the counterinsurgency .
The only way you can beat an insurgency is by interacting with the populace within the country , to galvanize support for the counterinsurgency campaign .
If all you do is bomb people from the air you are going to get eh exact opposite effect .
Without boots on the ground , you will not get proper intel .
As such , there is a higher likelihood of collateral damage .
When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians , you lose what little support you may have had .
You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders , repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks , give little kids food/medical attention .
You build up a rapport with people , and they will work with you .
Otherwise , they are more likely to see you as the enemy instead of the insurgents .
It may not be the newest , sexiest piece of technology , but it works .
And you cant be afraid to have people out in harm 's way .
You have to have men getting in firefights , so the locals see you actually taking an interest in protecting their towns , their fields , their families .
If this does n't happen , you will lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air power never wins wars, and that is what drones are.
It is important to have boots on the ground, especially in a counterinsurgency campaign.
For most insurgencies, the recruitment pool is the citizenry within the country who are unsatisfied and discontented.
If a counterinsurgent force is relying primarily on impersonal methods such as drones or air power, the local populace will never see or interact with the foot soldiers of the counterinsurgency.
The only way you can beat an insurgency is by interacting with the populace within the country, to galvanize support for the counterinsurgency campaign.
If all you do is bomb people from the air you are going to get eh exact opposite effect.
Without boots on the ground, you will not get proper intel.
As such, there is a higher likelihood of collateral damage.
When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had.
You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.
You build up a rapport with people, and they will work with you.
Otherwise, they are more likely to see you as the enemy instead of the insurgents.
It may not be the newest, sexiest piece of technology, but it works.
And you cant be afraid to have people out in harm's way.
You have to have men getting in firefights, so the locals see you actually taking an interest in protecting their towns, their fields, their families.
If this doesn't happen, you will lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752257</id>
	<title>Re:Sex with sheep</title>
	<author>sponga</author>
	<datestamp>1255529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I had to post one of the infamous 'Donkey Love' videos and this one has music.</p><p>Donkey Love<br><a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=325\_1253735346" title="liveleak.com">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=325\_1253735346</a> [liveleak.com]</p><p>He even has his buddy help him out, tag team action on the donkey?<br>*high five*<br>"very nice"</p><p>On a side note, they have a UAV operations center somewhere by Tustin, California and you can talk to the guys at the bar after they get off a days work of UAV surveillance. Of course it is all classified, but I read a couple places where some guys got into discussion with them.</p><p>Weird you go to war in the morning and come home to your kids/wife in the evening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I had to post one of the infamous 'Donkey Love ' videos and this one has music.Donkey Lovehttp : //www.liveleak.com/view ? i = 325 \ _1253735346 [ liveleak.com ] He even has his buddy help him out , tag team action on the donkey ?
* high five * " very nice " On a side note , they have a UAV operations center somewhere by Tustin , California and you can talk to the guys at the bar after they get off a days work of UAV surveillance .
Of course it is all classified , but I read a couple places where some guys got into discussion with them.Weird you go to war in the morning and come home to your kids/wife in the evening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I had to post one of the infamous 'Donkey Love' videos and this one has music.Donkey Lovehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=325\_1253735346 [liveleak.com]He even has his buddy help him out, tag team action on the donkey?
*high five*"very nice"On a side note, they have a UAV operations center somewhere by Tustin, California and you can talk to the guys at the bar after they get off a days work of UAV surveillance.
Of course it is all classified, but I read a couple places where some guys got into discussion with them.Weird you go to war in the morning and come home to your kids/wife in the evening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749915</id>
	<title>Drones are for Anonymous Cowards</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1255514400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749895</id>
	<title>Re:Sex with sheep</title>
	<author>Sinical</author>
	<datestamp>1255514280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we just buy a television transmitter and have it broadcast this kind of video 24 hours a day?  I dunno how well sheepfucking plays with the locals, but if there's any kind of personally identifiable info, maybe we can ridicule some of these guys to death.  Uhm, if there're TVs.  Otherwise we could distribute leaflets with choice video stills on them.</p><p>Or not.  Mostly I just thought the title of "Afghanistan's Funniest Home Sheepfucking Videos" was really catchy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we just buy a television transmitter and have it broadcast this kind of video 24 hours a day ?
I dunno how well sheepfucking plays with the locals , but if there 's any kind of personally identifiable info , maybe we can ridicule some of these guys to death .
Uhm , if there 're TVs .
Otherwise we could distribute leaflets with choice video stills on them.Or not .
Mostly I just thought the title of " Afghanistan 's Funniest Home Sheepfucking Videos " was really catchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we just buy a television transmitter and have it broadcast this kind of video 24 hours a day?
I dunno how well sheepfucking plays with the locals, but if there's any kind of personally identifiable info, maybe we can ridicule some of these guys to death.
Uhm, if there're TVs.
Otherwise we could distribute leaflets with choice video stills on them.Or not.
Mostly I just thought the title of "Afghanistan's Funniest Home Sheepfucking Videos" was really catchy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751453</id>
	<title>Re:Reaper? How 'bout Cheaper?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255523940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, thanks for this post, reminds me of what kind of opinionated dumbasses this website attracts. You obviously don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.  Believe it or not, there's more to these planes than sticking a webcam onto a tiny RC plane, and they're actually cheap.

</p><p> <i>At $10.9m, I'd rather see them going cheaper, and deploying more.</i> </p><p>Dumbass, the reason why we're not deploying more isn't money, it's a lack of pilots. You would know that if you had RTFA. STFU and RTFA, sucker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thanks for this post , reminds me of what kind of opinionated dumbasses this website attracts .
You obviously do n't know the first thing about what you 're talking about .
Believe it or not , there 's more to these planes than sticking a webcam onto a tiny RC plane , and they 're actually cheap .
At $ 10.9m , I 'd rather see them going cheaper , and deploying more .
Dumbass , the reason why we 're not deploying more is n't money , it 's a lack of pilots .
You would know that if you had RTFA .
STFU and RTFA , sucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thanks for this post, reminds me of what kind of opinionated dumbasses this website attracts.
You obviously don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
Believe it or not, there's more to these planes than sticking a webcam onto a tiny RC plane, and they're actually cheap.
At $10.9m, I'd rather see them going cheaper, and deploying more.
Dumbass, the reason why we're not deploying more isn't money, it's a lack of pilots.
You would know that if you had RTFA.
STFU and RTFA, sucker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751029</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Achromatic1978</author>
	<datestamp>1255520760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq</p></div></blockquote><p>Leaving aside Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has precisely nothing to do with "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here", and everything to do with the people of a country taking up arms against a foreign invader who attacked their country because the country refused to give up someone who the US demanded, without seeing evidence, which the US refused to allow.</p><p>
Anything beyond that is a Republican talking point. There's a reason many of these insurgents live a day job of herding sheep or cattle, and so on. It's because they ARE sheep herders, or such. They took arms when they had foreign military on their land, in their homes, and a foreign government that thinks nothing of congratulating itself for bombing a gathering of such people and telling the world it is stopping 'terror', when the reality is that if they packed up and went home, so too would the sheep herders.</p><p>
Of course, I am not so naive to believe that some have not taken advantage of this situation to further their own nefarious ends.</p><p>
But neither am I naive enough to believe that the US invasion of Afghanistan was as much a liberation as it was throwing gasoline on a fire.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and IraqLeaving aside Iraq , the war in Afghanistan has precisely nothing to do with " fighting them there , so we do n't have to fight them here " , and everything to do with the people of a country taking up arms against a foreign invader who attacked their country because the country refused to give up someone who the US demanded , without seeing evidence , which the US refused to allow .
Anything beyond that is a Republican talking point .
There 's a reason many of these insurgents live a day job of herding sheep or cattle , and so on .
It 's because they ARE sheep herders , or such .
They took arms when they had foreign military on their land , in their homes , and a foreign government that thinks nothing of congratulating itself for bombing a gathering of such people and telling the world it is stopping 'terror ' , when the reality is that if they packed up and went home , so too would the sheep herders .
Of course , I am not so naive to believe that some have not taken advantage of this situation to further their own nefarious ends .
But neither am I naive enough to believe that the US invasion of Afghanistan was as much a liberation as it was throwing gasoline on a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and IraqLeaving aside Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has precisely nothing to do with "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here", and everything to do with the people of a country taking up arms against a foreign invader who attacked their country because the country refused to give up someone who the US demanded, without seeing evidence, which the US refused to allow.
Anything beyond that is a Republican talking point.
There's a reason many of these insurgents live a day job of herding sheep or cattle, and so on.
It's because they ARE sheep herders, or such.
They took arms when they had foreign military on their land, in their homes, and a foreign government that thinks nothing of congratulating itself for bombing a gathering of such people and telling the world it is stopping 'terror', when the reality is that if they packed up and went home, so too would the sheep herders.
Of course, I am not so naive to believe that some have not taken advantage of this situation to further their own nefarious ends.
But neither am I naive enough to believe that the US invasion of Afghanistan was as much a liberation as it was throwing gasoline on a fire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749077</id>
	<title>Which is why we are headed towards another WW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255553640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama is working towards lowering the number of ICBM/Warheads that we have. At the same time, China has ramped up their production line of missiles as well as Neutrons bombs   while focusing on Offensive weapons designed to take out our sats. China has also has a massive Space Based weaponary. Combine the afore mentioned with Russia and China helping Iran, North Korea, Burma, and possibly Venezuela with nukes as well as Missile. What you have is ability for China to help these countries launch an attack on the entire west.<br> <br>
We are in VERY precarious times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is working towards lowering the number of ICBM/Warheads that we have .
At the same time , China has ramped up their production line of missiles as well as Neutrons bombs while focusing on Offensive weapons designed to take out our sats .
China has also has a massive Space Based weaponary .
Combine the afore mentioned with Russia and China helping Iran , North Korea , Burma , and possibly Venezuela with nukes as well as Missile .
What you have is ability for China to help these countries launch an attack on the entire west .
We are in VERY precarious times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is working towards lowering the number of ICBM/Warheads that we have.
At the same time, China has ramped up their production line of missiles as well as Neutrons bombs   while focusing on Offensive weapons designed to take out our sats.
China has also has a massive Space Based weaponary.
Combine the afore mentioned with Russia and China helping Iran, North Korea, Burma, and possibly Venezuela with nukes as well as Missile.
What you have is ability for China to help these countries launch an attack on the entire west.
We are in VERY precarious times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747999</id>
	<title>Cliches never wins wars</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1255549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of examples of wars won by air power. The Second World War, the Korean War, the Yom Kippur War, the Persian Gulf War, and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure there's no examples of air power winning wars all by itself, but that's not the point. Boots on the ground with a lot of air support beat boots on the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of examples of wars won by air power .
The Second World War , the Korean War , the Yom Kippur War , the Persian Gulf War , and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq .
Sure there 's no examples of air power winning wars all by itself , but that 's not the point .
Boots on the ground with a lot of air support beat boots on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of examples of wars won by air power.
The Second World War, the Korean War, the Yom Kippur War, the Persian Gulf War, and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sure there's no examples of air power winning wars all by itself, but that's not the point.
Boots on the ground with a lot of air support beat boots on the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</id>
	<title>Not that bad</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1255547280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, if wars are made up of robots fighting robots, there'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sides...  then, maybe, we could reduce wars to episodes of <a href="http://www.battlebots.com/" title="battlebots.com">BatteBots</a> [battlebots.com] and generate a large potential for advertising profit as the world tunes in to see the latest "war."  In this way, it would be possible to turn the human craving for cyclical violence into a family friendly TV show.  The advertising revenue would feed back into the "wars" much in the same manner as the current military-industrial complex uses profits from one war to develop the weapons for the next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , if wars are made up of robots fighting robots , there 'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sides... then , maybe , we could reduce wars to episodes of BatteBots [ battlebots.com ] and generate a large potential for advertising profit as the world tunes in to see the latest " war .
" In this way , it would be possible to turn the human craving for cyclical violence into a family friendly TV show .
The advertising revenue would feed back into the " wars " much in the same manner as the current military-industrial complex uses profits from one war to develop the weapons for the next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, if wars are made up of robots fighting robots, there'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sides...  then, maybe, we could reduce wars to episodes of BatteBots [battlebots.com] and generate a large potential for advertising profit as the world tunes in to see the latest "war.
"  In this way, it would be possible to turn the human craving for cyclical violence into a family friendly TV show.
The advertising revenue would feed back into the "wars" much in the same manner as the current military-industrial complex uses profits from one war to develop the weapons for the next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753409</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fail to mention that the "protesters" used Oscar Grant's death as an excuse to trash downtown Oakland. They "smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets." <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL" title="sfgate.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL</a> [sfgate.com]</p><p>Way to oversimplify a <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/qws/ff/qr?Submit=S&amp;term=oscar+grant&amp;period=1y" title="sfgate.com" rel="nofollow">really complicated</a> [sfgate.com] situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fail to mention that the " protesters " used Oscar Grant 's death as an excuse to trash downtown Oakland .
They " smashed storefronts and cars , set several cars ablaze and blocked streets .
" http : //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi ? f = /c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL [ sfgate.com ] Way to oversimplify a really complicated [ sfgate.com ] situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fail to mention that the "protesters" used Oscar Grant's death as an excuse to trash downtown Oakland.
They "smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets.
" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL [sfgate.com]Way to oversimplify a really complicated [sfgate.com] situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750693</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If any other country, 150 years ago, had the power that America has now, the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot. It isn't, because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty, "progressive" European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century."</p></div><p>So, what you're suggesting is that America is inherently a superior nation, and its actions should not be questioned or criticized, because they could be a LOT WORSE.<br>That's not a very good moral compass you have there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If any other country , 150 years ago , had the power that America has now , the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot .
It is n't , because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty , " progressive " European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century .
" So , what you 're suggesting is that America is inherently a superior nation , and its actions should not be questioned or criticized , because they could be a LOT WORSE.That 's not a very good moral compass you have there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If any other country, 150 years ago, had the power that America has now, the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot.
It isn't, because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty, "progressive" European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century.
"So, what you're suggesting is that America is inherently a superior nation, and its actions should not be questioned or criticized, because they could be a LOT WORSE.That's not a very good moral compass you have there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752599</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can hold ground with robots just fine. Why not?</p><p>while (humanSpotted &amp;&amp; moving)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//there should be no friendly humans present anyway<br>{<br>openFire();<br>}</p><p>The hearts and minds thing is politically correct propaganda anyway. In reality, it's about control of strategic locations and natural resources and reducing Russia's sphere of influence (even further), as well as positioning for future wars/power-projection (american bases in iraq).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can hold ground with robots just fine .
Why not ? while ( humanSpotted &amp;&amp; moving ) //there should be no friendly humans present anyway { openFire ( ) ; } The hearts and minds thing is politically correct propaganda anyway .
In reality , it 's about control of strategic locations and natural resources and reducing Russia 's sphere of influence ( even further ) , as well as positioning for future wars/power-projection ( american bases in iraq ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can hold ground with robots just fine.
Why not?while (humanSpotted &amp;&amp; moving) //there should be no friendly humans present anyway{openFire();}The hearts and minds thing is politically correct propaganda anyway.
In reality, it's about control of strategic locations and natural resources and reducing Russia's sphere of influence (even further), as well as positioning for future wars/power-projection (american bases in iraq).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753329</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1255540440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think Stalin or Temujin or Richard III or any leader throughout history has had any sort of scruples whatsoever about wasting any number of men, his own or otherwise, to achieve his goals?  This is nothing new under the sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think Stalin or Temujin or Richard III or any leader throughout history has had any sort of scruples whatsoever about wasting any number of men , his own or otherwise , to achieve his goals ?
This is nothing new under the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think Stalin or Temujin or Richard III or any leader throughout history has had any sort of scruples whatsoever about wasting any number of men, his own or otherwise, to achieve his goals?
This is nothing new under the sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748549</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255551480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people. Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics. The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup. That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's pretty much been the situation in Afghanistan since recorded history began. Under Taliban rule, the Taliban basically ruled Kabul, and outside the city limits, it was no man's land. The Taliban didn't give up bin Laden because they <b>couldn't</b>, he was 400 miles away in disputed territory and the Taliban didn't have the military to pull that off. There's a considerable difference between <b>can't</b> and <b>won't</b>. What the war did was create enough martyrs to put the Taliban in a stronger position than ever before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people .
Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics .
The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup .
That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul .
That 's pretty much been the situation in Afghanistan since recorded history began .
Under Taliban rule , the Taliban basically ruled Kabul , and outside the city limits , it was no man 's land .
The Taliban did n't give up bin Laden because they could n't , he was 400 miles away in disputed territory and the Taliban did n't have the military to pull that off .
There 's a considerable difference between ca n't and wo n't .
What the war did was create enough martyrs to put the Taliban in a stronger position than ever before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people.
Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics.
The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup.
That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul.
That's pretty much been the situation in Afghanistan since recorded history began.
Under Taliban rule, the Taliban basically ruled Kabul, and outside the city limits, it was no man's land.
The Taliban didn't give up bin Laden because they couldn't, he was 400 miles away in disputed territory and the Taliban didn't have the military to pull that off.
There's a considerable difference between can't and won't.
What the war did was create enough martyrs to put the Taliban in a stronger position than ever before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423</id>
	<title>Sex with sheep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From page 4:</p><p><i>Indeed, they see many things meant to be secret, like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night. I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor, but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations. "All the time," he said. "They just don't think we can see them."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From page 4 : Indeed , they see many things meant to be secret , like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night .
I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor , but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations .
" All the time , " he said .
" They just do n't think we can see them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From page 4:Indeed, they see many things meant to be secret, like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night.
I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor, but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations.
"All the time," he said.
"They just don't think we can see them.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255545780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly so. Americans dont seem to mind killing or abusing people as long as its not their own ones. USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation, and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly so .
Americans dont seem to mind killing or abusing people as long as its not their own ones .
USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation , and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly so.
Americans dont seem to mind killing or abusing people as long as its not their own ones.
USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation, and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748693</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soldiers don't start wars. Politicians start wars. Politicians and their families rarely get killed in wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soldiers do n't start wars .
Politicians start wars .
Politicians and their families rarely get killed in wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soldiers don't start wars.
Politicians start wars.
Politicians and their families rarely get killed in wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750487</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must resist feeding the idiots and trolls other wise you end up with more idiots and trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must resist feeding the idiots and trolls other wise you end up with more idiots and trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must resist feeding the idiots and trolls other wise you end up with more idiots and trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748293</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1255550400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have the drones bombed? Many, many, many. Look at it this way. There ARE terrorists in Afghanistan which do cruel things, without a doubt. But why is bombing their neighborhood considered and appropriate response? Should the US Government drop 2-ton bombs on Mafia don's surburban homes? Why not? It would protect American police WARGARBL. You would be insane with anger if the government decided to solve its problems with gun running by blasting the house and half the block from 40,000 feet. But you don't mind when they do it to Afghanis, because ---- ? As to your claims that the United States is morally sound because it doesn't commit open genocide (anymore,) I find that point of view to be the sole providence of the fucking insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many weddings , funerals , markets , and religious services have the drones bombed ?
Many , many , many .
Look at it this way .
There ARE terrorists in Afghanistan which do cruel things , without a doubt .
But why is bombing their neighborhood considered and appropriate response ?
Should the US Government drop 2-ton bombs on Mafia don 's surburban homes ?
Why not ?
It would protect American police WARGARBL .
You would be insane with anger if the government decided to solve its problems with gun running by blasting the house and half the block from 40,000 feet .
But you do n't mind when they do it to Afghanis , because ---- ?
As to your claims that the United States is morally sound because it does n't commit open genocide ( anymore , ) I find that point of view to be the sole providence of the fucking insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have the drones bombed?
Many, many, many.
Look at it this way.
There ARE terrorists in Afghanistan which do cruel things, without a doubt.
But why is bombing their neighborhood considered and appropriate response?
Should the US Government drop 2-ton bombs on Mafia don's surburban homes?
Why not?
It would protect American police WARGARBL.
You would be insane with anger if the government decided to solve its problems with gun running by blasting the house and half the block from 40,000 feet.
But you don't mind when they do it to Afghanis, because ---- ?
As to your claims that the United States is morally sound because it doesn't commit open genocide (anymore,) I find that point of view to be the sole providence of the fucking insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750085</id>
	<title>Drones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255515180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just finished reading Skunk Works which has some very interesting history on spy planes, stealth aircraft and drones. It's really quite amazing how long the USA has been flying these things and what they can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just finished reading Skunk Works which has some very interesting history on spy planes , stealth aircraft and drones .
It 's really quite amazing how long the USA has been flying these things and what they can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just finished reading Skunk Works which has some very interesting history on spy planes, stealth aircraft and drones.
It's really quite amazing how long the USA has been flying these things and what they can do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1255552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Accepted how? It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA". But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the <b>continent</b>. That includes the whole of North America and South America. It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this. I used "USian" here as a shortcut, because it is more precise. Truth, you know.</p><blockquote><div><p>We are nothing like Ancient Rome. If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You know nothing of Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome was far more like the USA in its policies than is comfortable for you. It did not kill all males, it <b>subjugated</b> the conquered cultures and slowly injected Roman values and culture into them until they became wholly subservient to Rome. Rome even promoted some of the conquered to the role of Roman Citizens (while at the same time virtually enslaving the rest). It allowed for control with far less effort on the part of the central government, as it was in the interest of the newly appointed upper class to police their own backyard. This is the <b>very same</b> strategy that the US has used in Iraq and is attempting to use in Afghanistan.</p><blockquote><div><p>Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The Romans only knew how to keep enemies of Rome in line (for a while). Your imbecilic assumption that Rome = Civilization only goes to show ho warped your mind is.</p><blockquote><div><p>We've long since forgotten how to do that. More's the pity.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Precisely the ass-hat attitude I was describing. The USian mind yearning for more gore and blood of all those "dirty", "uncivilized" "outsiders" who dare to resist the "liberation" and "civilization" (defined as vapid, US-centric, rabid consumerism). Not enough mass graves, and they need more napalm apparently.</p><blockquote><div><p>I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed. Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That is a handy excuse: do not like due process? Simple: invade some place, declare it a "battlefield" and all those inconvenient to you as "enemies", or better yet "unlawful combatants" and presto! No more pesky international law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or <b>any</b> law for that matter.
</p><p>In short, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about, narcissistic, vile, arrogant, callous, sociopathic, self-appointed "bringer of civilization" to the "barbarians". The likes of you litter history books, usually somewhere under the heading of "supremacist warmongers".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that someone who says the truth hurts ca n't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States : American .
Accepted how ?
It is true that in common usage " American " came to become a short-hand for " the citizen of USA " .
But " Americans " are , by definition , denizens of America , the continent .
That includes the whole of North America and South America .
It only underlines my point , as to the self-centred , narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this .
I used " USian " here as a shortcut , because it is more precise .
Truth , you know.We are nothing like Ancient Rome .
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago .
You know nothing of Ancient Rome .
Ancient Rome was far more like the USA in its policies than is comfortable for you .
It did not kill all males , it subjugated the conquered cultures and slowly injected Roman values and culture into them until they became wholly subservient to Rome .
Rome even promoted some of the conquered to the role of Roman Citizens ( while at the same time virtually enslaving the rest ) .
It allowed for control with far less effort on the part of the central government , as it was in the interest of the newly appointed upper class to police their own backyard .
This is the very same strategy that the US has used in Iraq and is attempting to use in Afghanistan.Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line .
The Romans only knew how to keep enemies of Rome in line ( for a while ) .
Your imbecilic assumption that Rome = Civilization only goes to show ho warped your mind is.We 've long since forgotten how to do that .
More 's the pity .
Precisely the ass-hat attitude I was describing .
The USian mind yearning for more gore and blood of all those " dirty " , " uncivilized " " outsiders " who dare to resist the " liberation " and " civilization " ( defined as vapid , US-centric , rabid consumerism ) .
Not enough mass graves , and they need more napalm apparently.I was n't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed .
Could you point out this nugget of international law for me ?
That is a handy excuse : do not like due process ?
Simple : invade some place , declare it a " battlefield " and all those inconvenient to you as " enemies " , or better yet " unlawful combatants " and presto !
No more pesky international law ... or any law for that matter .
In short , you are a perfect example of what I was talking about , narcissistic , vile , arrogant , callous , sociopathic , self-appointed " bringer of civilization " to the " barbarians " .
The likes of you litter history books , usually somewhere under the heading of " supremacist warmongers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
Accepted how?
It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA".
But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the continent.
That includes the whole of North America and South America.
It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this.
I used "USian" here as a shortcut, because it is more precise.
Truth, you know.We are nothing like Ancient Rome.
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago.
You know nothing of Ancient Rome.
Ancient Rome was far more like the USA in its policies than is comfortable for you.
It did not kill all males, it subjugated the conquered cultures and slowly injected Roman values and culture into them until they became wholly subservient to Rome.
Rome even promoted some of the conquered to the role of Roman Citizens (while at the same time virtually enslaving the rest).
It allowed for control with far less effort on the part of the central government, as it was in the interest of the newly appointed upper class to police their own backyard.
This is the very same strategy that the US has used in Iraq and is attempting to use in Afghanistan.Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line.
The Romans only knew how to keep enemies of Rome in line (for a while).
Your imbecilic assumption that Rome = Civilization only goes to show ho warped your mind is.We've long since forgotten how to do that.
More's the pity.
Precisely the ass-hat attitude I was describing.
The USian mind yearning for more gore and blood of all those "dirty", "uncivilized" "outsiders" who dare to resist the "liberation" and "civilization" (defined as vapid, US-centric, rabid consumerism).
Not enough mass graves, and they need more napalm apparently.I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed.
Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?
That is a handy excuse: do not like due process?
Simple: invade some place, declare it a "battlefield" and all those inconvenient to you as "enemies", or better yet "unlawful combatants" and presto!
No more pesky international law ... or any law for that matter.
In short, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about, narcissistic, vile, arrogant, callous, sociopathic, self-appointed "bringer of civilization" to the "barbarians".
The likes of you litter history books, usually somewhere under the heading of "supremacist warmongers".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749205</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1255511160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look; We dropped them on a nation that had attacked us. Simple as that. We had no knowledge of the long term consequences. If you really want to blame somebody, then blame the japanese emperior. Heck, even after we dropped the first one, they should have said enough was enough. But they did not.<br> <br>
Finally, for all your carping about, you seem to ignore the fact that USSR, Germany, AND japan were all working on it as well. Germany transferred all their nuke knowledge to Japan via subs right before their fall. Either one of those 2 could have dropped them first (and the world would be a RADICALLY different place; all one nation). What would you be saying today had either of them dropped it? Praising that all the worlds jews were gone? That we were one happy nation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look ; We dropped them on a nation that had attacked us .
Simple as that .
We had no knowledge of the long term consequences .
If you really want to blame somebody , then blame the japanese emperior .
Heck , even after we dropped the first one , they should have said enough was enough .
But they did not .
Finally , for all your carping about , you seem to ignore the fact that USSR , Germany , AND japan were all working on it as well .
Germany transferred all their nuke knowledge to Japan via subs right before their fall .
Either one of those 2 could have dropped them first ( and the world would be a RADICALLY different place ; all one nation ) .
What would you be saying today had either of them dropped it ?
Praising that all the worlds jews were gone ?
That we were one happy nation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look; We dropped them on a nation that had attacked us.
Simple as that.
We had no knowledge of the long term consequences.
If you really want to blame somebody, then blame the japanese emperior.
Heck, even after we dropped the first one, they should have said enough was enough.
But they did not.
Finally, for all your carping about, you seem to ignore the fact that USSR, Germany, AND japan were all working on it as well.
Germany transferred all their nuke knowledge to Japan via subs right before their fall.
Either one of those 2 could have dropped them first (and the world would be a RADICALLY different place; all one nation).
What would you be saying today had either of them dropped it?
Praising that all the worlds jews were gone?
That we were one happy nation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749463</id>
	<title>Re:Why hire remote pilots?</title>
	<author>Lord\_Dweomer</author>
	<datestamp>1255512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, all our best players will have a high ping as they come from some rather distant countries.  kekekekeke<p>On the flip side, isn't buying "gold" from China what got our country into the debt fiasco we're in now with them?  Fucking gold farmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , all our best players will have a high ping as they come from some rather distant countries .
kekekekekeOn the flip side , is n't buying " gold " from China what got our country into the debt fiasco we 're in now with them ?
Fucking gold farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, all our best players will have a high ping as they come from some rather distant countries.
kekekekekeOn the flip side, isn't buying "gold" from China what got our country into the debt fiasco we're in now with them?
Fucking gold farmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753369</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>JaBob</author>
	<datestamp>1255541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just remember kiddies... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot\_Jox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Robot Jox</a> [wikipedia.org] wasn't a documentary film.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember kiddies... Robot Jox [ wikipedia.org ] was n't a documentary film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember kiddies... Robot Jox [wikipedia.org] wasn't a documentary film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757031</id>
	<title>Pleasse get the history right</title>
	<author>DaveAtFraud</author>
	<datestamp>1255620360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false. I would suggest that the <i>thermo</i>nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were <b>nuclear</b> fission bombs.  Thermonuclear bombs are fusion bombs.  The first fusion bomb wasn't exploded until several years after WWII had ended.
</p><p>
That being said, you'll find Max Hastings book, <i>Retribution</i>, to provide an interesting and well researched take on the factors that led to Japan's surrender.  Hastings' position is that the fire raids, mining operations and submarine blockade of Japan were the major factors that led to the surrender.  He notes that, at that time and for some time after the war, the Japanese did not consider there to be any significant difference between the atomic raids and the conventional fire raids that were destroying their cities on a regular basis.  Finally, he discounts the influence of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion on Manchuria except to the extent that a few, non-military Japanese in the power structure still hoped that the Soviets would help them achieve a negotiated settlement.
</p><p>
Bottom line is that air power and sea power were able to force the Japanese to surrender without "boots on the ground".
</p><p>
Cheers,<br>
Dave</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying airpower does n't win wars is probably false .
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role .
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear fission bombs .
Thermonuclear bombs are fusion bombs .
The first fusion bomb was n't exploded until several years after WWII had ended .
That being said , you 'll find Max Hastings book , Retribution , to provide an interesting and well researched take on the factors that led to Japan 's surrender .
Hastings ' position is that the fire raids , mining operations and submarine blockade of Japan were the major factors that led to the surrender .
He notes that , at that time and for some time after the war , the Japanese did not consider there to be any significant difference between the atomic raids and the conventional fire raids that were destroying their cities on a regular basis .
Finally , he discounts the influence of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion on Manchuria except to the extent that a few , non-military Japanese in the power structure still hoped that the Soviets would help them achieve a negotiated settlement .
Bottom line is that air power and sea power were able to force the Japanese to surrender without " boots on the ground " .
Cheers , Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false.
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear fission bombs.
Thermonuclear bombs are fusion bombs.
The first fusion bomb wasn't exploded until several years after WWII had ended.
That being said, you'll find Max Hastings book, Retribution, to provide an interesting and well researched take on the factors that led to Japan's surrender.
Hastings' position is that the fire raids, mining operations and submarine blockade of Japan were the major factors that led to the surrender.
He notes that, at that time and for some time after the war, the Japanese did not consider there to be any significant difference between the atomic raids and the conventional fire raids that were destroying their cities on a regular basis.
Finally, he discounts the influence of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion on Manchuria except to the extent that a few, non-military Japanese in the power structure still hoped that the Soviets would help them achieve a negotiated settlement.
Bottom line is that air power and sea power were able to force the Japanese to surrender without "boots on the ground".
Cheers,
Dave
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749861</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporate Suit, nicely said.  Thank you.</p><p>Although frankly, if these backwards-headed Islamic people don't start rising up against the Al Quaedas in their midst, then maybe they deserve being turned into a glass parking lot.</p><p>Here's a clue-stick for you pretend religious people.  By your actions you prove you don't believe in Allah, instead, you believe in human-made things, false prophets, fallible books, divisive human-created rules and ideologies.  You're not holier-than-thou, you're lower than a slithering beast, for the way you denigrate God/Allah/Jehovah by putting your human violence and hate in the sacred's name.</p><p>Call yourself Christian, Jew, Moslem, or Flying Fuck-all, all you do by pretending to be doing the work of the divine is actually the work of Satan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate Suit , nicely said .
Thank you.Although frankly , if these backwards-headed Islamic people do n't start rising up against the Al Quaedas in their midst , then maybe they deserve being turned into a glass parking lot.Here 's a clue-stick for you pretend religious people .
By your actions you prove you do n't believe in Allah , instead , you believe in human-made things , false prophets , fallible books , divisive human-created rules and ideologies .
You 're not holier-than-thou , you 're lower than a slithering beast , for the way you denigrate God/Allah/Jehovah by putting your human violence and hate in the sacred 's name.Call yourself Christian , Jew , Moslem , or Flying Fuck-all , all you do by pretending to be doing the work of the divine is actually the work of Satan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporate Suit, nicely said.
Thank you.Although frankly, if these backwards-headed Islamic people don't start rising up against the Al Quaedas in their midst, then maybe they deserve being turned into a glass parking lot.Here's a clue-stick for you pretend religious people.
By your actions you prove you don't believe in Allah, instead, you believe in human-made things, false prophets, fallible books, divisive human-created rules and ideologies.
You're not holier-than-thou, you're lower than a slithering beast, for the way you denigrate God/Allah/Jehovah by putting your human violence and hate in the sacred's name.Call yourself Christian, Jew, Moslem, or Flying Fuck-all, all you do by pretending to be doing the work of the divine is actually the work of Satan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747645</id>
	<title>BurpPhase</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drone planes....the most pussified, cowardice occupation ever conceived. I guess we know why their are so many RPG games available, complete with Network capability logging really "talented" gamers.</p><p>How indifferent will such a "pilot" be after a few months of "missions".</p><p>SMDH...Police in my neighborhood have been hanging Anti-Violence posters everywhere. Laughable considering our history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drone planes....the most pussified , cowardice occupation ever conceived .
I guess we know why their are so many RPG games available , complete with Network capability logging really " talented " gamers.How indifferent will such a " pilot " be after a few months of " missions " .SMDH...Police in my neighborhood have been hanging Anti-Violence posters everywhere .
Laughable considering our history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drone planes....the most pussified, cowardice occupation ever conceived.
I guess we know why their are so many RPG games available, complete with Network capability logging really "talented" gamers.How indifferent will such a "pilot" be after a few months of "missions".SMDH...Police in my neighborhood have been hanging Anti-Violence posters everywhere.
Laughable considering our history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747861</id>
	<title>Well if we fought them like the good old days</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1255548540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not agree.  However in this day and age where we handicap our side in every war you point is true.</p><p>bombing a population into submission works, it broke the back of the Germans and Japanese.  It is far cheaper in manpower expenditure on our side to demoralize an enemy than befriend them.  Yet we choose the later and put more people into direct risk.</p><p>I really think we would get seriously hurt in any real conflict as it would take a large population center being affected before we could fight like we had to.  Perhaps that is the problem, in many cases today we don't really need to be in the fight in the first place.  We had it right after 9/11 but lost it after countless "what ifs" and such by press and pundit.  We lost it because don't have the patience for the long run nor did we feel the risk after so many years.  Bush lost the effectiveness of 9/11 with the "mission accomplished" crap and really for many that removed the "pressing need".</p><p>Drones are great tools of assassins.  I guess if the new face of war needs an association that is negative I would give it that.  Now we will just hunt and peck at the enemy while he does the same to us and prolong things for dozens of years.  The public now wants wars akin to Star Trek episodes, done in an hour with the nitty gritty done in the last ten minutes and everyone patting themselves on the back about how good they were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not agree .
However in this day and age where we handicap our side in every war you point is true.bombing a population into submission works , it broke the back of the Germans and Japanese .
It is far cheaper in manpower expenditure on our side to demoralize an enemy than befriend them .
Yet we choose the later and put more people into direct risk.I really think we would get seriously hurt in any real conflict as it would take a large population center being affected before we could fight like we had to .
Perhaps that is the problem , in many cases today we do n't really need to be in the fight in the first place .
We had it right after 9/11 but lost it after countless " what ifs " and such by press and pundit .
We lost it because do n't have the patience for the long run nor did we feel the risk after so many years .
Bush lost the effectiveness of 9/11 with the " mission accomplished " crap and really for many that removed the " pressing need " .Drones are great tools of assassins .
I guess if the new face of war needs an association that is negative I would give it that .
Now we will just hunt and peck at the enemy while he does the same to us and prolong things for dozens of years .
The public now wants wars akin to Star Trek episodes , done in an hour with the nitty gritty done in the last ten minutes and everyone patting themselves on the back about how good they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not agree.
However in this day and age where we handicap our side in every war you point is true.bombing a population into submission works, it broke the back of the Germans and Japanese.
It is far cheaper in manpower expenditure on our side to demoralize an enemy than befriend them.
Yet we choose the later and put more people into direct risk.I really think we would get seriously hurt in any real conflict as it would take a large population center being affected before we could fight like we had to.
Perhaps that is the problem, in many cases today we don't really need to be in the fight in the first place.
We had it right after 9/11 but lost it after countless "what ifs" and such by press and pundit.
We lost it because don't have the patience for the long run nor did we feel the risk after so many years.
Bush lost the effectiveness of 9/11 with the "mission accomplished" crap and really for many that removed the "pressing need".Drones are great tools of assassins.
I guess if the new face of war needs an association that is negative I would give it that.
Now we will just hunt and peck at the enemy while he does the same to us and prolong things for dozens of years.
The public now wants wars akin to Star Trek episodes, done in an hour with the nitty gritty done in the last ten minutes and everyone patting themselves on the back about how good they were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755973</id>
	<title>Re:Why hire remote pilots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255615740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ender is that you??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ender is that you ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ender is that you?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750353</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255516560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic works for opposing forces of roughly equivalent power.  If one side, however, develops such an array of defenses that opposition cannot meet it militarily, then it is really cowardly to attack that power by alternative routes?  After all, this story is about people who flying robots around foreign countries and blow up wedding parties.  I bet those weddings were not surrounded by anti-aircraft battalions.  I would call that cowardly by your description.</p><p>I can almost hear you say, "Oh, but that's a mistake!"  Yes I know!  A cowardly one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic works for opposing forces of roughly equivalent power .
If one side , however , develops such an array of defenses that opposition can not meet it militarily , then it is really cowardly to attack that power by alternative routes ?
After all , this story is about people who flying robots around foreign countries and blow up wedding parties .
I bet those weddings were not surrounded by anti-aircraft battalions .
I would call that cowardly by your description.I can almost hear you say , " Oh , but that 's a mistake !
" Yes I know !
A cowardly one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic works for opposing forces of roughly equivalent power.
If one side, however, develops such an array of defenses that opposition cannot meet it militarily, then it is really cowardly to attack that power by alternative routes?
After all, this story is about people who flying robots around foreign countries and blow up wedding parties.
I bet those weddings were not surrounded by anti-aircraft battalions.
I would call that cowardly by your description.I can almost hear you say, "Oh, but that's a mistake!
"  Yes I know!
A cowardly one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750953</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255520160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War is always won in hearts and minds, although acted out on the turf.  When you are powerless to defeat your enemies head on you look for more favorable "terms of engagement".</p><p>Suicide bombing attacks are some of the most demoralizing actions in our current war.  This didn't really strike me until I watched the season of Battlestar Galactica when they try to settle on the first semi-hospitable planet and the Cylons predictably capture all of them.  The humans, unable to battle the Cylons face to face, resort to suicide bombing attacks to sap the morale of their conquerors.</p><p>On a tangent thought: Read Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea".  The reasons why these people are willing to blow themselves up are upsetting.  Coupling abject poverty with lack of percieved ways to better their living condition, many of the young go to madrassa's sponsored by rich Saudis.  There they learn the ways of the insurgent and become "terrorists".  The lack of a perceived alternative to radical Islamacism is what we really need to declare war on.</p><p>I'm not anti war, everyday I give thanks for the boots on the ground in harms way.  I just firmly believe that there are more fronts in this war than most people realize, and the most important ones to fight on don't require a machine gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War is always won in hearts and minds , although acted out on the turf .
When you are powerless to defeat your enemies head on you look for more favorable " terms of engagement " .Suicide bombing attacks are some of the most demoralizing actions in our current war .
This did n't really strike me until I watched the season of Battlestar Galactica when they try to settle on the first semi-hospitable planet and the Cylons predictably capture all of them .
The humans , unable to battle the Cylons face to face , resort to suicide bombing attacks to sap the morale of their conquerors.On a tangent thought : Read Greg Mortenson 's " Three Cups of Tea " .
The reasons why these people are willing to blow themselves up are upsetting .
Coupling abject poverty with lack of percieved ways to better their living condition , many of the young go to madrassa 's sponsored by rich Saudis .
There they learn the ways of the insurgent and become " terrorists " .
The lack of a perceived alternative to radical Islamacism is what we really need to declare war on.I 'm not anti war , everyday I give thanks for the boots on the ground in harms way .
I just firmly believe that there are more fronts in this war than most people realize , and the most important ones to fight on do n't require a machine gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War is always won in hearts and minds, although acted out on the turf.
When you are powerless to defeat your enemies head on you look for more favorable "terms of engagement".Suicide bombing attacks are some of the most demoralizing actions in our current war.
This didn't really strike me until I watched the season of Battlestar Galactica when they try to settle on the first semi-hospitable planet and the Cylons predictably capture all of them.
The humans, unable to battle the Cylons face to face, resort to suicide bombing attacks to sap the morale of their conquerors.On a tangent thought: Read Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea".
The reasons why these people are willing to blow themselves up are upsetting.
Coupling abject poverty with lack of percieved ways to better their living condition, many of the young go to madrassa's sponsored by rich Saudis.
There they learn the ways of the insurgent and become "terrorists".
The lack of a perceived alternative to radical Islamacism is what we really need to declare war on.I'm not anti war, everyday I give thanks for the boots on the ground in harms way.
I just firmly believe that there are more fronts in this war than most people realize, and the most important ones to fight on don't require a machine gun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747035</id>
	<title>I think its Ender's Game time!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long will we throw Ender at thier asses?</p><p>That is what I wanna know because the kids these days know violence and are in desperate need of an outlet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will we throw Ender at thier asses ? That is what I wan na know because the kids these days know violence and are in desperate need of an outlet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will we throw Ender at thier asses?That is what I wanna know because the kids these days know violence and are in desperate need of an outlet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747307</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1255546140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Truth does not care about how it is modded. it stands for itself and justifies itself against the mob.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Truth does not care about how it is modded .
it stands for itself and justifies itself against the mob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Truth does not care about how it is modded.
it stands for itself and justifies itself against the mob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752789</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1255534500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

This proves nothing, is a Canada not part of America? What about Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Columbia, Panama are the people of these nation's not Americans?<br> <br>

No, the grand parent was correct in using the term USian, the actual proper noun for a citizen of the United States of America is "Citizen of the United States of America" and "American" in this context is just a colloquialism. Granted USian is a colloquialism too but this does not make the parent wrong any more then it makes right (Cluebat: it doesn't).<br> <br>

The GP wanted to differentiate clearly between a Citizen of the United States of America and a Citizen of the commonwealth of Canada and in your hasty attack of his colloquialism with another colloquialism only served to prove his point about US arrogance.</p><blockquote><div><p>We are nothing like Ancient Rome.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

The fall of the US mirrors the fall of Rome, due to internal bickering and corruption. Also you have many points in common with Rome, in particular how you insert or force your language on other peoples. Concentrating on rare and unreliable events to disprove a trend does not help.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that someone who says the truth hurts ca n't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States : American .
This proves nothing , is a Canada not part of America ?
What about Mexico , Argentina , Cuba , Brazil , Columbia , Panama are the people of these nation 's not Americans ?
No , the grand parent was correct in using the term USian , the actual proper noun for a citizen of the United States of America is " Citizen of the United States of America " and " American " in this context is just a colloquialism .
Granted USian is a colloquialism too but this does not make the parent wrong any more then it makes right ( Cluebat : it does n't ) .
The GP wanted to differentiate clearly between a Citizen of the United States of America and a Citizen of the commonwealth of Canada and in your hasty attack of his colloquialism with another colloquialism only served to prove his point about US arrogance.We are nothing like Ancient Rome .
The fall of the US mirrors the fall of Rome , due to internal bickering and corruption .
Also you have many points in common with Rome , in particular how you insert or force your language on other peoples .
Concentrating on rare and unreliable events to disprove a trend does not help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
This proves nothing, is a Canada not part of America?
What about Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Columbia, Panama are the people of these nation's not Americans?
No, the grand parent was correct in using the term USian, the actual proper noun for a citizen of the United States of America is "Citizen of the United States of America" and "American" in this context is just a colloquialism.
Granted USian is a colloquialism too but this does not make the parent wrong any more then it makes right (Cluebat: it doesn't).
The GP wanted to differentiate clearly between a Citizen of the United States of America and a Citizen of the commonwealth of Canada and in your hasty attack of his colloquialism with another colloquialism only served to prove his point about US arrogance.We are nothing like Ancient Rome.
The fall of the US mirrors the fall of Rome, due to internal bickering and corruption.
Also you have many points in common with Rome, in particular how you insert or force your language on other peoples.
Concentrating on rare and unreliable events to disprove a trend does not help.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748411</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1255550760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>War has always been about killing the other guys with as little risk to yourself as possible. Why do you think, spears, bows, guns, armor, missles, aircraft, and for that matter, just about everything else used in warfare was invented?  It certainly wasn't to give the other guy a fair chance to kill you...<br><br>Oh, and ask a Navy Seal about the Air Forces Combat Controllers. Even the Seals think those guys with the fluorescent orange hats have an unbelievable amount of courage, and talk of them in awe. Funny what you learn being on a multi-forces base for a few years...</htmltext>
<tokenext>War has always been about killing the other guys with as little risk to yourself as possible .
Why do you think , spears , bows , guns , armor , missles , aircraft , and for that matter , just about everything else used in warfare was invented ?
It certainly was n't to give the other guy a fair chance to kill you...Oh , and ask a Navy Seal about the Air Forces Combat Controllers .
Even the Seals think those guys with the fluorescent orange hats have an unbelievable amount of courage , and talk of them in awe .
Funny what you learn being on a multi-forces base for a few years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War has always been about killing the other guys with as little risk to yourself as possible.
Why do you think, spears, bows, guns, armor, missles, aircraft, and for that matter, just about everything else used in warfare was invented?
It certainly wasn't to give the other guy a fair chance to kill you...Oh, and ask a Navy Seal about the Air Forces Combat Controllers.
Even the Seals think those guys with the fluorescent orange hats have an unbelievable amount of courage, and talk of them in awe.
Funny what you learn being on a multi-forces base for a few years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750293</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think when they arm the drones they're equipping with the wrong loadout for an insurgency war. You get one or two missiles, and they each can take out an entire house - if not the surrounding ones as well. But what sucks is you only have one or two big shots. They're great for dealing with tanks or fortified bunkers, but it's really a huge waste if your immediate concern is just a sniper running around in an ol' beat-up pickup truck.</p><p>What they need to do is figure out how to put fins and a guidance system on the explosive casing piece from a standard issue infantry hand grenade. I'm sure it wouldn't be much of a stretch to make a bomblet fuse with steering fins on it that screws in where the normal grendade fuse goes, and then has a wire connected to a laser following guidance package and proximity sensor that glues on the other end. Now you have a smart bomb that's sized perfectly to deal with opponents camping out and sniping or setting up roadside bombs.</p><p>Now imagine what a drone could do with a loadout of 50 laser guided grenade bomblets that can be individually released and targeted. No more overkill, and much less holding back because of worry of collateral damage. If you see something that threatens your troops nearby, you don't have to wait for them to position in order to deal with it. (Which may take too long, and the bad guy gets away.) And you're not worried about wasting your precious ability to cause destruction as you would with hellfires. If loaded with mini-bombs you've got somewhere around 50 cheap proximity fused grenades, may as well take out the baddie for them.</p><p>If you're on the opposing side and up to no good, you've suddenly got the fear of being insta-fragged out of nowhere. It's not like anybody is worried in regards of taking out the neighborhood or wasting the too few shots they'd have in order to get you, so you can't take safety in camping out near to where the civies are or by avoiding running around in large groups. Micro-smart bombs would really put the fear of open skies into the terrorists and insurgents. It's as demoralizing as being insta-gibbed in a WTF?!? way, but for real.</p><p>Now if such a system is in deployment, they're doing a good job of staying pretty mum about it. But if they haven't put it together just yet, a defense contractor should really get on it. It would make the drones much more effective than it is with the very limited yet overkill payload they currently deploy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think when they arm the drones they 're equipping with the wrong loadout for an insurgency war .
You get one or two missiles , and they each can take out an entire house - if not the surrounding ones as well .
But what sucks is you only have one or two big shots .
They 're great for dealing with tanks or fortified bunkers , but it 's really a huge waste if your immediate concern is just a sniper running around in an ol ' beat-up pickup truck.What they need to do is figure out how to put fins and a guidance system on the explosive casing piece from a standard issue infantry hand grenade .
I 'm sure it would n't be much of a stretch to make a bomblet fuse with steering fins on it that screws in where the normal grendade fuse goes , and then has a wire connected to a laser following guidance package and proximity sensor that glues on the other end .
Now you have a smart bomb that 's sized perfectly to deal with opponents camping out and sniping or setting up roadside bombs.Now imagine what a drone could do with a loadout of 50 laser guided grenade bomblets that can be individually released and targeted .
No more overkill , and much less holding back because of worry of collateral damage .
If you see something that threatens your troops nearby , you do n't have to wait for them to position in order to deal with it .
( Which may take too long , and the bad guy gets away .
) And you 're not worried about wasting your precious ability to cause destruction as you would with hellfires .
If loaded with mini-bombs you 've got somewhere around 50 cheap proximity fused grenades , may as well take out the baddie for them.If you 're on the opposing side and up to no good , you 've suddenly got the fear of being insta-fragged out of nowhere .
It 's not like anybody is worried in regards of taking out the neighborhood or wasting the too few shots they 'd have in order to get you , so you ca n't take safety in camping out near to where the civies are or by avoiding running around in large groups .
Micro-smart bombs would really put the fear of open skies into the terrorists and insurgents .
It 's as demoralizing as being insta-gibbed in a WTF ? ! ?
way , but for real.Now if such a system is in deployment , they 're doing a good job of staying pretty mum about it .
But if they have n't put it together just yet , a defense contractor should really get on it .
It would make the drones much more effective than it is with the very limited yet overkill payload they currently deploy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think when they arm the drones they're equipping with the wrong loadout for an insurgency war.
You get one or two missiles, and they each can take out an entire house - if not the surrounding ones as well.
But what sucks is you only have one or two big shots.
They're great for dealing with tanks or fortified bunkers, but it's really a huge waste if your immediate concern is just a sniper running around in an ol' beat-up pickup truck.What they need to do is figure out how to put fins and a guidance system on the explosive casing piece from a standard issue infantry hand grenade.
I'm sure it wouldn't be much of a stretch to make a bomblet fuse with steering fins on it that screws in where the normal grendade fuse goes, and then has a wire connected to a laser following guidance package and proximity sensor that glues on the other end.
Now you have a smart bomb that's sized perfectly to deal with opponents camping out and sniping or setting up roadside bombs.Now imagine what a drone could do with a loadout of 50 laser guided grenade bomblets that can be individually released and targeted.
No more overkill, and much less holding back because of worry of collateral damage.
If you see something that threatens your troops nearby, you don't have to wait for them to position in order to deal with it.
(Which may take too long, and the bad guy gets away.
) And you're not worried about wasting your precious ability to cause destruction as you would with hellfires.
If loaded with mini-bombs you've got somewhere around 50 cheap proximity fused grenades, may as well take out the baddie for them.If you're on the opposing side and up to no good, you've suddenly got the fear of being insta-fragged out of nowhere.
It's not like anybody is worried in regards of taking out the neighborhood or wasting the too few shots they'd have in order to get you, so you can't take safety in camping out near to where the civies are or by avoiding running around in large groups.
Micro-smart bombs would really put the fear of open skies into the terrorists and insurgents.
It's as demoralizing as being insta-gibbed in a WTF?!?
way, but for real.Now if such a system is in deployment, they're doing a good job of staying pretty mum about it.
But if they haven't put it together just yet, a defense contractor should really get on it.
It would make the drones much more effective than it is with the very limited yet overkill payload they currently deploy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749449</id>
	<title>Re:Reaper? How 'bout Cheaper?</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1255512180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that there are other small drones out there that are closer to your $2k tricked out R/C airplane. But if you look at what kind of stuff the big drones are carrying, it's not really a surprise that they're pricey. Encrypted satellite links, cameras that can tell people apart from 5 miles away, infrared cameras that can do the same, that's all expensive stuff. Your $2k plane is going to have to be controlled by someone reasonably close to it, which is a big chunk of the advantage of the drones. From the article, there are over 2000 people at home supporting the 400 people in the field, which is 2000 less people to supply and protect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that there are other small drones out there that are closer to your $ 2k tricked out R/C airplane .
But if you look at what kind of stuff the big drones are carrying , it 's not really a surprise that they 're pricey .
Encrypted satellite links , cameras that can tell people apart from 5 miles away , infrared cameras that can do the same , that 's all expensive stuff .
Your $ 2k plane is going to have to be controlled by someone reasonably close to it , which is a big chunk of the advantage of the drones .
From the article , there are over 2000 people at home supporting the 400 people in the field , which is 2000 less people to supply and protect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that there are other small drones out there that are closer to your $2k tricked out R/C airplane.
But if you look at what kind of stuff the big drones are carrying, it's not really a surprise that they're pricey.
Encrypted satellite links, cameras that can tell people apart from 5 miles away, infrared cameras that can do the same, that's all expensive stuff.
Your $2k plane is going to have to be controlled by someone reasonably close to it, which is a big chunk of the advantage of the drones.
From the article, there are over 2000 people at home supporting the 400 people in the field, which is 2000 less people to supply and protect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1255548360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Slashdot is international in scope, it is still predominantly a US-centric site. Expect to be moderated into oblivion. Truth hurts and US-ians want <b>*absolutely nothing*</b> to do with it. Avoidance of truth is precisely why they have meticulously constructed a nearly impregnable bubble of self-centered dogma around themselves.
</p><p>Speaking against the policies of the USA here clashes terribly with the "national mythology" which has been methodically and insistently injected into the minds of USians for generations now, even the supposedly well educated ones who ostensibly gather at sites such as this.
</p><p>It conflicts with this view of the world where they are the "Knights of Freedom in Shining Armour on White Chargers" upon whom the entire planet dearly depends for its liberties and its masses for their daily crumbs, a world in which their network of military installations in over half of the countries of the planet does not herald an Imperial ambition, like with all the other "lesser" cultures and countries past, but instead it indicates a kindly, fatherly concern for the betterment (defined as shift towards US-centric world-view) of the "poor wretches".
</p><p>All and any challengers to this world-view are "evil-doers" and have to be exterminated with prejudice, no matter the number of bystanders killed in the process<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as long as they are not US citizens. In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1, the only "people" in the view of US-ians are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... US-ians. The "lesser" creatures, although not outright enslaved as Rome had it, still "enjoy" only a marginal status as "somewhat sentient" in the view of the US-ians, and they should be grateful for it, for after-all all of the positive developments in their lives can be, in the US-ian dogma, attributed directly and exclusively to the US.
</p><p>I could go on, as could pretty much anyone outside the US who is not inspiring to join the global "winners" in hopes of snatching some crumbs from the feast of their upper echelons of corporate nobility, and the extent of this attitude of the US citizens is far far greater then just this. But then again one could only look at the tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of maimed and wounded and millions of dispossessed the US "liberators" (with some help from sycophantic side-kicks) have produced in just the last decade alone to get an idea...
</p><p>And on the topics of the drones, everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, <b>remotely</b> (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff) people whom US suspects of the greatest crime possible, in this Universe - i.e. opposing US interests. I envision, in some 30 years time, a world where hundreds of thousands of US drones roam the skies of all 3rd world nations, and a good portion of the "allied" ones, conducting "targetted assassinations", Israel-style, of anyone who dares to oppose our "kindly and magnanimous" global "benefactors". For "our own good", you understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Slashdot is international in scope , it is still predominantly a US-centric site .
Expect to be moderated into oblivion .
Truth hurts and US-ians want * absolutely nothing * to do with it .
Avoidance of truth is precisely why they have meticulously constructed a nearly impregnable bubble of self-centered dogma around themselves .
Speaking against the policies of the USA here clashes terribly with the " national mythology " which has been methodically and insistently injected into the minds of USians for generations now , even the supposedly well educated ones who ostensibly gather at sites such as this .
It conflicts with this view of the world where they are the " Knights of Freedom in Shining Armour on White Chargers " upon whom the entire planet dearly depends for its liberties and its masses for their daily crumbs , a world in which their network of military installations in over half of the countries of the planet does not herald an Imperial ambition , like with all the other " lesser " cultures and countries past , but instead it indicates a kindly , fatherly concern for the betterment ( defined as shift towards US-centric world-view ) of the " poor wretches " .
All and any challengers to this world-view are " evil-doers " and have to be exterminated with prejudice , no matter the number of bystanders killed in the process ... as long as they are not US citizens .
In fact , very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the " ungrateful " slaves outnumbered them 3 : 1 , the only " people " in the view of US-ians are .... US-ians. The " lesser " creatures , although not outright enslaved as Rome had it , still " enjoy " only a marginal status as " somewhat sentient " in the view of the US-ians , and they should be grateful for it , for after-all all of the positive developments in their lives can be , in the US-ian dogma , attributed directly and exclusively to the US .
I could go on , as could pretty much anyone outside the US who is not inspiring to join the global " winners " in hopes of snatching some crumbs from the feast of their upper echelons of corporate nobility , and the extent of this attitude of the US citizens is far far greater then just this .
But then again one could only look at the tens of thousands of dead , hundreds of thousands of maimed and wounded and millions of dispossessed the US " liberators " ( with some help from sycophantic side-kicks ) have produced in just the last decade alone to get an idea.. . And on the topics of the drones , everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used : to assassinate , remotely ( with no regard for bystanders , due process or any of that " coddling " stuff ) people whom US suspects of the greatest crime possible , in this Universe - i.e .
opposing US interests .
I envision , in some 30 years time , a world where hundreds of thousands of US drones roam the skies of all 3rd world nations , and a good portion of the " allied " ones , conducting " targetted assassinations " , Israel-style , of anyone who dares to oppose our " kindly and magnanimous " global " benefactors " .
For " our own good " , you understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Slashdot is international in scope, it is still predominantly a US-centric site.
Expect to be moderated into oblivion.
Truth hurts and US-ians want *absolutely nothing* to do with it.
Avoidance of truth is precisely why they have meticulously constructed a nearly impregnable bubble of self-centered dogma around themselves.
Speaking against the policies of the USA here clashes terribly with the "national mythology" which has been methodically and insistently injected into the minds of USians for generations now, even the supposedly well educated ones who ostensibly gather at sites such as this.
It conflicts with this view of the world where they are the "Knights of Freedom in Shining Armour on White Chargers" upon whom the entire planet dearly depends for its liberties and its masses for their daily crumbs, a world in which their network of military installations in over half of the countries of the planet does not herald an Imperial ambition, like with all the other "lesser" cultures and countries past, but instead it indicates a kindly, fatherly concern for the betterment (defined as shift towards US-centric world-view) of the "poor wretches".
All and any challengers to this world-view are "evil-doers" and have to be exterminated with prejudice, no matter the number of bystanders killed in the process ... as long as they are not US citizens.
In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1, the only "people" in the view of US-ians are .... US-ians. The "lesser" creatures, although not outright enslaved as Rome had it, still "enjoy" only a marginal status as "somewhat sentient" in the view of the US-ians, and they should be grateful for it, for after-all all of the positive developments in their lives can be, in the US-ian dogma, attributed directly and exclusively to the US.
I could go on, as could pretty much anyone outside the US who is not inspiring to join the global "winners" in hopes of snatching some crumbs from the feast of their upper echelons of corporate nobility, and the extent of this attitude of the US citizens is far far greater then just this.
But then again one could only look at the tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of maimed and wounded and millions of dispossessed the US "liberators" (with some help from sycophantic side-kicks) have produced in just the last decade alone to get an idea...
And on the topics of the drones, everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, remotely (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff) people whom US suspects of the greatest crime possible, in this Universe - i.e.
opposing US interests.
I envision, in some 30 years time, a world where hundreds of thousands of US drones roam the skies of all 3rd world nations, and a good portion of the "allied" ones, conducting "targetted assassinations", Israel-style, of anyone who dares to oppose our "kindly and magnanimous" global "benefactors".
For "our own good", you understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750701</id>
	<title>There's this thing about killing civilians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in international law.<br>The US is killing civilians by the busload in Pakistan. Or more accurately: at wedding and in houses where terrorists are thought to be hiding. Dunno why, but hitting weddings is almost routine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in international law.The US is killing civilians by the busload in Pakistan .
Or more accurately : at wedding and in houses where terrorists are thought to be hiding .
Dunno why , but hitting weddings is almost routine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in international law.The US is killing civilians by the busload in Pakistan.
Or more accurately: at wedding and in houses where terrorists are thought to be hiding.
Dunno why, but hitting weddings is almost routine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1255550040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false.  I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.</p><p>You have to qualify your statement to read "airpower ALONE doesn't win wars"--that statement has been generally true in the past.  On the other hand, any person would be a moron to assume that the statement will continue to be true in the future.  Generals usually start the next war off by fighting it just like the previous war.  They are oftentimes not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store.  They often fail to timely recognize, that certain technologies are game-changers.  Think aircraft carriers in WWII and machine guns in WWI, for example.</p><p>But all this stuff misses the mark, in my opinion.  Everybody has to agree that airpower provides a vital and irreplaceable role in the projection of power.</p><p>But this "boots on the ground" idea is simply stupid when it is applied in the abstract.</p><p>Before you can EVER begin to determine the proper role and scope of airpower in any kind of violent conflict, you MUST figure out just what "winning" is.  Only when you've determined your victory conditions, can you determine the role that airpower will play in meeting those conditions.</p><p>Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning.  This is like super-Vietnam deja vu.  We're somewhere between creating a US-friendly country with a US-friendly power structure (neocolonialism) and going in there, bashing the hell out of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and getting out.</p><p>We can't make the Vietnam mistake of blindly trusting that our leaders' goals are appropriate and achievable.  Our leaders are no brighter or more insightful than we are.  There needs to be a public dialog about victory conditions . . .  But I digress.</p><p>To get back on topic:  You can't determine the proper scope of airpower until you define appropriate victory conditions.  Jabbering back and forth about grunts versus pilots is meaningless, because in almost all of the common scenarios, each is vitally interdependent upon the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying airpower does n't win wars is probably false .
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.You have to qualify your statement to read " airpower ALONE does n't win wars " --that statement has been generally true in the past .
On the other hand , any person would be a moron to assume that the statement will continue to be true in the future .
Generals usually start the next war off by fighting it just like the previous war .
They are oftentimes not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store .
They often fail to timely recognize , that certain technologies are game-changers .
Think aircraft carriers in WWII and machine guns in WWI , for example.But all this stuff misses the mark , in my opinion .
Everybody has to agree that airpower provides a vital and irreplaceable role in the projection of power.But this " boots on the ground " idea is simply stupid when it is applied in the abstract.Before you can EVER begin to determine the proper role and scope of airpower in any kind of violent conflict , you MUST figure out just what " winning " is .
Only when you 've determined your victory conditions , can you determine the role that airpower will play in meeting those conditions.Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning .
This is like super-Vietnam deja vu .
We 're somewhere between creating a US-friendly country with a US-friendly power structure ( neocolonialism ) and going in there , bashing the hell out of the Taliban and Al Quaeda , and getting out.We ca n't make the Vietnam mistake of blindly trusting that our leaders ' goals are appropriate and achievable .
Our leaders are no brighter or more insightful than we are .
There needs to be a public dialog about victory conditions .
. .
But I digress.To get back on topic : You ca n't determine the proper scope of airpower until you define appropriate victory conditions .
Jabbering back and forth about grunts versus pilots is meaningless , because in almost all of the common scenarios , each is vitally interdependent upon the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false.
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.You have to qualify your statement to read "airpower ALONE doesn't win wars"--that statement has been generally true in the past.
On the other hand, any person would be a moron to assume that the statement will continue to be true in the future.
Generals usually start the next war off by fighting it just like the previous war.
They are oftentimes not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store.
They often fail to timely recognize, that certain technologies are game-changers.
Think aircraft carriers in WWII and machine guns in WWI, for example.But all this stuff misses the mark, in my opinion.
Everybody has to agree that airpower provides a vital and irreplaceable role in the projection of power.But this "boots on the ground" idea is simply stupid when it is applied in the abstract.Before you can EVER begin to determine the proper role and scope of airpower in any kind of violent conflict, you MUST figure out just what "winning" is.
Only when you've determined your victory conditions, can you determine the role that airpower will play in meeting those conditions.Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning.
This is like super-Vietnam deja vu.
We're somewhere between creating a US-friendly country with a US-friendly power structure (neocolonialism) and going in there, bashing the hell out of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and getting out.We can't make the Vietnam mistake of blindly trusting that our leaders' goals are appropriate and achievable.
Our leaders are no brighter or more insightful than we are.
There needs to be a public dialog about victory conditions .
. .
But I digress.To get back on topic:  You can't determine the proper scope of airpower until you define appropriate victory conditions.
Jabbering back and forth about grunts versus pilots is meaningless, because in almost all of the common scenarios, each is vitally interdependent upon the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747283</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1255546080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What people refuse to understand is that our lives are no more important to our benevolent government than the lives of the ragheads in the mountains of Waziristan. Do you really think Obama cares about YOU? he doesn't care about human life in Pakistan or Iraq, why should he care about human life in Detriot or San Diego? The moment it becomes more profitable to have you dead than alive from the view of the US gov't, they will find a justification to be rid of you. At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES. If we do not speak out about the lives of civilians in these far-flung nations these drones will be used against us next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people refuse to understand is that our lives are no more important to our benevolent government than the lives of the ragheads in the mountains of Waziristan .
Do you really think Obama cares about YOU ?
he does n't care about human life in Pakistan or Iraq , why should he care about human life in Detriot or San Diego ?
The moment it becomes more profitable to have you dead than alive from the view of the US gov't , they will find a justification to be rid of you .
At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES .
If we do not speak out about the lives of civilians in these far-flung nations these drones will be used against us next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people refuse to understand is that our lives are no more important to our benevolent government than the lives of the ragheads in the mountains of Waziristan.
Do you really think Obama cares about YOU?
he doesn't care about human life in Pakistan or Iraq, why should he care about human life in Detriot or San Diego?
The moment it becomes more profitable to have you dead than alive from the view of the US gov't, they will find a justification to be rid of you.
At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES.
If we do not speak out about the lives of civilians in these far-flung nations these drones will be used against us next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749685</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1255513380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you remove that you also remove the only motivation...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Some of us don't like killing people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you remove that you also remove the only motivation.. . Some of us do n't like killing people ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you remove that you also remove the only motivation...
Some of us don't like killing people ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754683</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1255602000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Air power never wins wars, and that is what drones are.</p></div><p>It reminds me of a joke:</p><p>"Two Soviet tank commanders meet in the centre of Paris. One asks the other, "'By the way -- who won the air war?'"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Air power never wins wars , and that is what drones are.It reminds me of a joke : " Two Soviet tank commanders meet in the centre of Paris .
One asks the other , " 'By the way -- who won the air war ?
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air power never wins wars, and that is what drones are.It reminds me of a joke:"Two Soviet tank commanders meet in the centre of Paris.
One asks the other, "'By the way -- who won the air war?
'"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747981</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255549020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're not afraid that something they cannot see, but is likely to be present, isn't about to bring in an air strike or an armed patrol...  They either ain't too bright, or bullshitting.<br>
&nbsp; <br>While open brute intimidation <i>is</i> a valuable facet of the psychological side of warfare (which is different from psychological warfare),  so is increasing the uncertainty and thickening the fog of war.  There are different levels to the game...  Open intimidation and shows of force are aimed at the tactical level, the proles and the grunts on the ground.  More subtle forms of increasing friction and uncertainty are aimed at the higher levels, the leadership and the strategic planners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're not afraid that something they can not see , but is likely to be present , is n't about to bring in an air strike or an armed patrol... They either ai n't too bright , or bullshitting .
  While open brute intimidation is a valuable facet of the psychological side of warfare ( which is different from psychological warfare ) , so is increasing the uncertainty and thickening the fog of war .
There are different levels to the game... Open intimidation and shows of force are aimed at the tactical level , the proles and the grunts on the ground .
More subtle forms of increasing friction and uncertainty are aimed at the higher levels , the leadership and the strategic planners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're not afraid that something they cannot see, but is likely to be present, isn't about to bring in an air strike or an armed patrol...  They either ain't too bright, or bullshitting.
  While open brute intimidation is a valuable facet of the psychological side of warfare (which is different from psychological warfare),  so is increasing the uncertainty and thickening the fog of war.
There are different levels to the game...  Open intimidation and shows of force are aimed at the tactical level, the proles and the grunts on the ground.
More subtle forms of increasing friction and uncertainty are aimed at the higher levels, the leadership and the strategic planners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758757</id>
	<title>While I disagree with part of this</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255627500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false. I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not a very good argument. The war was essentially over by this point anyway - we could very likely have just stood by for a month or two and waited for the Japanese government to collapse. But this:</p><blockquote><div><p>Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Right on, brother. If we ever figure out why we're there, we might make some progress in A-stan. Until then, we're just spinning our wheels. This was the same thing that made Iraq drag on for so long - the objectives kept changing. In fact, I think that much like it was in Iraq, the solution is to simply declare victory and go home.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying airpower does n't win wars is probably false .
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.Not a very good argument .
The war was essentially over by this point anyway - we could very likely have just stood by for a month or two and waited for the Japanese government to collapse .
But this : Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning .
Right on , brother .
If we ever figure out why we 're there , we might make some progress in A-stan .
Until then , we 're just spinning our wheels .
This was the same thing that made Iraq drag on for so long - the objectives kept changing .
In fact , I think that much like it was in Iraq , the solution is to simply declare victory and go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false.
I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.Not a very good argument.
The war was essentially over by this point anyway - we could very likely have just stood by for a month or two and waited for the Japanese government to collapse.
But this:Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning.
Right on, brother.
If we ever figure out why we're there, we might make some progress in A-stan.
Until then, we're just spinning our wheels.
This was the same thing that made Iraq drag on for so long - the objectives kept changing.
In fact, I think that much like it was in Iraq, the solution is to simply declare victory and go home.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749421</id>
	<title>painless war</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1255512120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not many military operations show such lopsided results: big impact at low cost, with results disproportional to the sacrifice, which fuels the insatiable hunger for UAVs and makes waging war even more abstract for everyone at home. People care less about what their government does when they are not asked to contribute. In World War II, one in ten Americans served in the military, and the war dead totaled nearly half a million. Today, fewer than one in a hundred serve in the military, and as the machines take over and that flesh-and-blood burden shrinks even more, the citizenry will disengage more and more.</p></div><p>This is why technology will never result in utopia.  There is too much incentive for those in power to use it to increase their power, and too little cost to the populace to incite them to resist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not many military operations show such lopsided results : big impact at low cost , with results disproportional to the sacrifice , which fuels the insatiable hunger for UAVs and makes waging war even more abstract for everyone at home .
People care less about what their government does when they are not asked to contribute .
In World War II , one in ten Americans served in the military , and the war dead totaled nearly half a million .
Today , fewer than one in a hundred serve in the military , and as the machines take over and that flesh-and-blood burden shrinks even more , the citizenry will disengage more and more.This is why technology will never result in utopia .
There is too much incentive for those in power to use it to increase their power , and too little cost to the populace to incite them to resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not many military operations show such lopsided results: big impact at low cost, with results disproportional to the sacrifice, which fuels the insatiable hunger for UAVs and makes waging war even more abstract for everyone at home.
People care less about what their government does when they are not asked to contribute.
In World War II, one in ten Americans served in the military, and the war dead totaled nearly half a million.
Today, fewer than one in a hundred serve in the military, and as the machines take over and that flesh-and-blood burden shrinks even more, the citizenry will disengage more and more.This is why technology will never result in utopia.
There is too much incentive for those in power to use it to increase their power, and too little cost to the populace to incite them to resist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748445</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;To be a rigger?</p><p>Just act like Kanye West, instead of as a gentleman like Barack Obama, and you'll be well on your way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; To be a rigger ? Just act like Kanye West , instead of as a gentleman like Barack Obama , and you 'll be well on your way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;To be a rigger?Just act like Kanye West, instead of as a gentleman like Barack Obama, and you'll be well on your way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748031</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1255549320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree let's keep the war to good old fashioned radar guided, over the horizon artillery barrages and "precision" carpet bombing.</p><p>War is about killing the other side without getting killed yourself, it sucks, it's war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree let 's keep the war to good old fashioned radar guided , over the horizon artillery barrages and " precision " carpet bombing.War is about killing the other side without getting killed yourself , it sucks , it 's war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree let's keep the war to good old fashioned radar guided, over the horizon artillery barrages and "precision" carpet bombing.War is about killing the other side without getting killed yourself, it sucks, it's war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754055</id>
	<title>Re:Great, yet we can't talk to Afghans</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1255636860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be sorry - that's a really silly idea.</p><p>Do you have any idea how many languages are spoken in Afghanistan, most of which are spoken nowhere else? And due to its fringe interest, you're not likely to find many people other than those who have been there who can speak, let alone understand those languages <i>and</i> English (or Spanish, Portuguese, etc.).</p><p>From the CIA World Factbook:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50\%, Pashto (official) 35\%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11\%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4\%, much bilingualism</p></div><p>Keep in mind that Persian has many dialects even within Persia which are not commonly understood <i>within Iran</i>. Afghan Persian? Forget about it. Your chances of finding one of the above listed languages decreases as you go into the more remote, tribal areas. This is all complicated by an illiterate populace which doesn't have a written language to go with their spoken tribal tongue, nevermind being able to write.</p><p>Then, consider language/dialectal confusion. Even with English in the modern world, people will have brogues so thick and incomprehensible to make the actual language spoken inconsequential. Sure, you've got someone fluent in Uzbek, just in the Uzbek spoken 30 miles to the east, not this backwater Uzbek-Turkic mix...</p><p>I used to know a Kurdish Iranian who could speak and understand 7 languages, two of which were Turkic and Persian. He still was unable to communicate in the native tongue in some smaller locales near (100 miles) of where he was born.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be sorry - that 's a really silly idea.Do you have any idea how many languages are spoken in Afghanistan , most of which are spoken nowhere else ?
And due to its fringe interest , you 're not likely to find many people other than those who have been there who can speak , let alone understand those languages and English ( or Spanish , Portuguese , etc .
) .From the CIA World Factbook : Afghan Persian or Dari ( official ) 50 \ % , Pashto ( official ) 35 \ % , Turkic languages ( primarily Uzbek and Turkmen ) 11 \ % , 30 minor languages ( primarily Balochi and Pashai ) 4 \ % , much bilingualismKeep in mind that Persian has many dialects even within Persia which are not commonly understood within Iran .
Afghan Persian ?
Forget about it .
Your chances of finding one of the above listed languages decreases as you go into the more remote , tribal areas .
This is all complicated by an illiterate populace which does n't have a written language to go with their spoken tribal tongue , nevermind being able to write.Then , consider language/dialectal confusion .
Even with English in the modern world , people will have brogues so thick and incomprehensible to make the actual language spoken inconsequential .
Sure , you 've got someone fluent in Uzbek , just in the Uzbek spoken 30 miles to the east , not this backwater Uzbek-Turkic mix...I used to know a Kurdish Iranian who could speak and understand 7 languages , two of which were Turkic and Persian .
He still was unable to communicate in the native tongue in some smaller locales near ( 100 miles ) of where he was born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be sorry - that's a really silly idea.Do you have any idea how many languages are spoken in Afghanistan, most of which are spoken nowhere else?
And due to its fringe interest, you're not likely to find many people other than those who have been there who can speak, let alone understand those languages and English (or Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
).From the CIA World Factbook:Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50\%, Pashto (official) 35\%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11\%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4\%, much bilingualismKeep in mind that Persian has many dialects even within Persia which are not commonly understood within Iran.
Afghan Persian?
Forget about it.
Your chances of finding one of the above listed languages decreases as you go into the more remote, tribal areas.
This is all complicated by an illiterate populace which doesn't have a written language to go with their spoken tribal tongue, nevermind being able to write.Then, consider language/dialectal confusion.
Even with English in the modern world, people will have brogues so thick and incomprehensible to make the actual language spoken inconsequential.
Sure, you've got someone fluent in Uzbek, just in the Uzbek spoken 30 miles to the east, not this backwater Uzbek-Turkic mix...I used to know a Kurdish Iranian who could speak and understand 7 languages, two of which were Turkic and Persian.
He still was unable to communicate in the native tongue in some smaller locales near (100 miles) of where he was born.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1255547880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're mistaken. The American people don't object to the killing or abuse of their OWN people either. It is well known that American prisons are full of non-violent druggies subjected to rape, torture, and all forms of sexual violence. Instead of a national outcry against this, it is treated as a subject for late-night humor. When blacks in Oakland protest against a black boy having been murdered, shot point blank in the back while restrained on the BART - most Americans  were angry at the PROTESTORS and cheered when the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them. Americans will only become angry when it is a friend, neighbor, or family member who is abused. Anyone else and it becomes ENTERTAINMENT. The show "Cops" exists as a voyeuristic corruption of the justice system which is obviously based on the court room in Idiocracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're mistaken .
The American people do n't object to the killing or abuse of their OWN people either .
It is well known that American prisons are full of non-violent druggies subjected to rape , torture , and all forms of sexual violence .
Instead of a national outcry against this , it is treated as a subject for late-night humor .
When blacks in Oakland protest against a black boy having been murdered , shot point blank in the back while restrained on the BART - most Americans were angry at the PROTESTORS and cheered when the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them .
Americans will only become angry when it is a friend , neighbor , or family member who is abused .
Anyone else and it becomes ENTERTAINMENT .
The show " Cops " exists as a voyeuristic corruption of the justice system which is obviously based on the court room in Idiocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're mistaken.
The American people don't object to the killing or abuse of their OWN people either.
It is well known that American prisons are full of non-violent druggies subjected to rape, torture, and all forms of sexual violence.
Instead of a national outcry against this, it is treated as a subject for late-night humor.
When blacks in Oakland protest against a black boy having been murdered, shot point blank in the back while restrained on the BART - most Americans  were angry at the PROTESTORS and cheered when the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them.
Americans will only become angry when it is a friend, neighbor, or family member who is abused.
Anyone else and it becomes ENTERTAINMENT.
The show "Cops" exists as a voyeuristic corruption of the justice system which is obviously based on the court room in Idiocracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29759645</id>
	<title>Videos Showing US Customs Predator B UAV</title>
	<author>snowsam</author>
	<datestamp>1255631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are two videos showing a US Customs Predator B UAV landing at the big Air Show in Oshkosh Wisconsin this past summer. The first video shows the aircraft landing and close-up. The second video shows the inside of the portable control trailer and the view from the UAV cameras during the approach and landing.

<a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30185778001" title="brightcove.com" rel="nofollow">http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30185778001</a> [brightcove.com]
<a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30711327001" title="brightcove.com" rel="nofollow">http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30711327001</a> [brightcove.com]

Enjoy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are two videos showing a US Customs Predator B UAV landing at the big Air Show in Oshkosh Wisconsin this past summer .
The first video shows the aircraft landing and close-up .
The second video shows the inside of the portable control trailer and the view from the UAV cameras during the approach and landing .
http : //link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413 ? bclid = 9230910001&amp;bctid = 30185778001 [ brightcove.com ] http : //link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413 ? bclid = 9230910001&amp;bctid = 30711327001 [ brightcove.com ] Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are two videos showing a US Customs Predator B UAV landing at the big Air Show in Oshkosh Wisconsin this past summer.
The first video shows the aircraft landing and close-up.
The second video shows the inside of the portable control trailer and the view from the UAV cameras during the approach and landing.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30185778001 [brightcove.com]
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid626910413?bclid=9230910001&amp;bctid=30711327001 [brightcove.com]

Enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752839</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1255534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Smooth.<br> <br>

Anyone who denounces you and your state is a coward. Nice, but I guess good Germans^W Americans dont question the acts of their government for such things are considered against the greater good.<br> <br>

Allow me to quote Winston Churchill:<br>
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."</p><blockquote><div><p>hey don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is wrong as it ignores all the other factors involved in the equation.<br> <br>

There is absolutely no evidence that this is true. I could just as well say that I have a rock (here in Australia) that keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not in the US. You would have a hard time proving or disproving either point.<br> <br>

But hey, dont let the facts or reality get in the way of your jingoism, go team.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize .
Smooth . Anyone who denounces you and your state is a coward .
Nice , but I guess good Germans ^ W Americans dont question the acts of their government for such things are considered against the greater good .
Allow me to quote Winston Churchill : " Criticism may not be agreeable , but it is necessary .
It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body .
It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things .
" hey do n't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq This is wrong as it ignores all the other factors involved in the equation .
There is absolutely no evidence that this is true .
I could just as well say that I have a rock ( here in Australia ) that keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq , not in the US .
You would have a hard time proving or disproving either point .
But hey , dont let the facts or reality get in the way of your jingoism , go team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize.
Smooth. 

Anyone who denounces you and your state is a coward.
Nice, but I guess good Germans^W Americans dont question the acts of their government for such things are considered against the greater good.
Allow me to quote Winston Churchill:
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary.
It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body.
It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
"hey don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq

This is wrong as it ignores all the other factors involved in the equation.
There is absolutely no evidence that this is true.
I could just as well say that I have a rock (here in Australia) that keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not in the US.
You would have a hard time proving or disproving either point.
But hey, dont let the facts or reality get in the way of your jingoism, go team.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29756775</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Punctuated\_Equilibri</author>
	<datestamp>1255619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human history \_is\_ the endless war scenario.  It's the universal peace scenario that is yet to be demonstrated.  By this logic, if you are enjoying peace locally, it is because the fighting is going on somewhere else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human history \ _is \ _ the endless war scenario .
It 's the universal peace scenario that is yet to be demonstrated .
By this logic , if you are enjoying peace locally , it is because the fighting is going on somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human history \_is\_ the endless war scenario.
It's the universal peace scenario that is yet to be demonstrated.
By this logic, if you are enjoying peace locally, it is because the fighting is going on somewhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750709</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255518900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>I've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed.  When I was is the Navy, we regarded the Coasties as more of a military service than the USAF.  We often called the latter 'Boeing with a dress code'.<br>
&nbsp; <br>And don't even get me started on the USAF officer who tried to put 24 hour stretches hiding in a hole in the prairie and going home to mama on the same footing as my doing 90 days under the North Atlantic on an SSBN.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force.That 's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.Indeed .
When I was is the Navy , we regarded the Coasties as more of a military service than the USAF .
We often called the latter 'Boeing with a dress code' .
  And do n't even get me started on the USAF officer who tried to put 24 hour stretches hiding in a hole in the prairie and going home to mama on the same footing as my doing 90 days under the North Atlantic on an SSBN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard UAV pilots refered to more than once as the ChAir Force.That's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.Indeed.
When I was is the Navy, we regarded the Coasties as more of a military service than the USAF.
We often called the latter 'Boeing with a dress code'.
  And don't even get me started on the USAF officer who tried to put 24 hour stretches hiding in a hole in the prairie and going home to mama on the same footing as my doing 90 days under the North Atlantic on an SSBN.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747737</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah you are confusing commitment with bravery.</p><p>The most commited...hands down, the bomber.</p><p>That said, only a fool would deliberately ignore the advantages his or her military has granted through technology. Its like saying we should all drop our armor, rifles and go at each other with fists...then you will be a REAL man.  Know what...I'd rather be alive than subscribe to your definition of manhood. It is about who wins not who dies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah you are confusing commitment with bravery.The most commited...hands down , the bomber.That said , only a fool would deliberately ignore the advantages his or her military has granted through technology .
Its like saying we should all drop our armor , rifles and go at each other with fists...then you will be a REAL man .
Know what...I 'd rather be alive than subscribe to your definition of manhood .
It is about who wins not who dies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah you are confusing commitment with bravery.The most commited...hands down, the bomber.That said, only a fool would deliberately ignore the advantages his or her military has granted through technology.
Its like saying we should all drop our armor, rifles and go at each other with fists...then you will be a REAL man.
Know what...I'd rather be alive than subscribe to your definition of manhood.
It is about who wins not who dies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747977</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh how I miss Shadowrun...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh how I miss Shadowrun.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh how I miss Shadowrun...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747827</id>
	<title>It's when they try to mate with the 747s that...</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255548360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it disturbs me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it disturbs me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it disturbs me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753187</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1255538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you know this, but the predator/reaper pilots in california are only part of the system. The birds in iraq launch out of bases in iraq. They are controlled from pilots in iraq during takeoff and landing; control is often handed over to the local pilots during flight. The local pilots are often close enough to the UAV's flightpath that the missile strikes are audible. And all the maintainers and support staff live in the local base. I've spent some time in the control center with the (local) pilots, watching them fly around our base. We've been attacked while I was in there, too, and it's not some video game to the people involved, not at all. There are people on the ground whose lives are in our hands, whether on the base taking mortar fire or outside the wire taking small arms fire or tracking enemies.</p><p>Flying these aircraft- and ordering fire- is deadly serious business and I really can't think of it as any farther removed from the war than a pilot in an f-16 or a guard in a tower ordering mortar fire 1000 yards out.</p><p>Another poster has identified the fallacy about how the predator makes killing easier/more efficient/less dangerous compared to arrows, muskets, cannons, etc.</p><p>And no more talk about 'leveling the playing field'. This is war, we do it for you, stay the hell out of it. You want to get involved, VOTE for the people who make these decisions.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you know this , but the predator/reaper pilots in california are only part of the system .
The birds in iraq launch out of bases in iraq .
They are controlled from pilots in iraq during takeoff and landing ; control is often handed over to the local pilots during flight .
The local pilots are often close enough to the UAV 's flightpath that the missile strikes are audible .
And all the maintainers and support staff live in the local base .
I 've spent some time in the control center with the ( local ) pilots , watching them fly around our base .
We 've been attacked while I was in there , too , and it 's not some video game to the people involved , not at all .
There are people on the ground whose lives are in our hands , whether on the base taking mortar fire or outside the wire taking small arms fire or tracking enemies.Flying these aircraft- and ordering fire- is deadly serious business and I really ca n't think of it as any farther removed from the war than a pilot in an f-16 or a guard in a tower ordering mortar fire 1000 yards out.Another poster has identified the fallacy about how the predator makes killing easier/more efficient/less dangerous compared to arrows , muskets , cannons , etc.And no more talk about 'leveling the playing field' .
This is war , we do it for you , stay the hell out of it .
You want to get involved , VOTE for the people who make these decisions.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you know this, but the predator/reaper pilots in california are only part of the system.
The birds in iraq launch out of bases in iraq.
They are controlled from pilots in iraq during takeoff and landing; control is often handed over to the local pilots during flight.
The local pilots are often close enough to the UAV's flightpath that the missile strikes are audible.
And all the maintainers and support staff live in the local base.
I've spent some time in the control center with the (local) pilots, watching them fly around our base.
We've been attacked while I was in there, too, and it's not some video game to the people involved, not at all.
There are people on the ground whose lives are in our hands, whether on the base taking mortar fire or outside the wire taking small arms fire or tracking enemies.Flying these aircraft- and ordering fire- is deadly serious business and I really can't think of it as any farther removed from the war than a pilot in an f-16 or a guard in a tower ordering mortar fire 1000 yards out.Another poster has identified the fallacy about how the predator makes killing easier/more efficient/less dangerous compared to arrows, muskets, cannons, etc.And no more talk about 'leveling the playing field'.
This is war, we do it for you, stay the hell out of it.
You want to get involved, VOTE for the people who make these decisions.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747341</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1255546260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So either I can choose the man who reviers a child molester (Muhammad had sex with 9 year old child) and straps a bomb to his chest to go blow up women and children in crouded shopping areas, or a guy who tries to kill him from a lazy-boy who does not target innocents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So either I can choose the man who reviers a child molester ( Muhammad had sex with 9 year old child ) and straps a bomb to his chest to go blow up women and children in crouded shopping areas , or a guy who tries to kill him from a lazy-boy who does not target innocents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either I can choose the man who reviers a child molester (Muhammad had sex with 9 year old child) and straps a bomb to his chest to go blow up women and children in crouded shopping areas, or a guy who tries to kill him from a lazy-boy who does not target innocents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758409</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255625880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nicely done...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nicely done.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nicely done...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037</id>
	<title>Reaper? How 'bout Cheaper?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1255549320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future, eh?</i></p><p>At $10.9m, I'd rather see them going cheaper, and deploying more. Having seen the advances in home-built drones at Maker Faire and on RCGroups and having done a little myself, that price is absolutely ludicrous. You need $10.9m aircraft to reduce the risk that the components (or humans, if manned) will be lost in combat or fall into enemy hands. But if you use cheap commodity components, you don't need it to survive.</p><p>I do think there is a role for Reapers -- send them in for advanced missions and when you need to shoot. But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm's way? A $2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.</p><p>Nice side bonus: If you have a lot more planes, you can give more soldiers stick time. Not that war is fun, but if you're going to be in a war, it's nice to have a productive diversion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future , eh ? At $ 10.9m , I 'd rather see them going cheaper , and deploying more .
Having seen the advances in home-built drones at Maker Faire and on RCGroups and having done a little myself , that price is absolutely ludicrous .
You need $ 10.9m aircraft to reduce the risk that the components ( or humans , if manned ) will be lost in combat or fall into enemy hands .
But if you use cheap commodity components , you do n't need it to survive.I do think there is a role for Reapers -- send them in for advanced missions and when you need to shoot .
But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm 's way ?
A $ 2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.Nice side bonus : If you have a lot more planes , you can give more soldiers stick time .
Not that war is fun , but if you 're going to be in a war , it 's nice to have a productive diversion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future, eh?At $10.9m, I'd rather see them going cheaper, and deploying more.
Having seen the advances in home-built drones at Maker Faire and on RCGroups and having done a little myself, that price is absolutely ludicrous.
You need $10.9m aircraft to reduce the risk that the components (or humans, if manned) will be lost in combat or fall into enemy hands.
But if you use cheap commodity components, you don't need it to survive.I do think there is a role for Reapers -- send them in for advanced missions and when you need to shoot.
But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm's way?
A $2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.Nice side bonus: If you have a lot more planes, you can give more soldiers stick time.
Not that war is fun, but if you're going to be in a war, it's nice to have a productive diversion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747361</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ChAir Force?</p><p>Then Steve Ballmer should be made a general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChAir Force ? Then Steve Ballmer should be made a general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChAir Force?Then Steve Ballmer should be made a general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750773</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1255519200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties. I mean, without American casualties, of course. Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem.</p></div><p>That might be part of it.  There's some speculation of that in the article.  And there's mention of losses that resulted in no pilot deaths.  But go read the article and you'll see the real interest: cheap aircraft that are cheap to run and can remain over target something like 24x longer than manned craft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...given the serious topic , but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy : a war without casualties .
I mean , without American casualties , of course .
Wishful thinking , whatever technologies you throw at the problem.That might be part of it .
There 's some speculation of that in the article .
And there 's mention of losses that resulted in no pilot deaths .
But go read the article and you 'll see the real interest : cheap aircraft that are cheap to run and can remain over target something like 24x longer than manned craft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties.
I mean, without American casualties, of course.
Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem.That might be part of it.
There's some speculation of that in the article.
And there's mention of losses that resulted in no pilot deaths.
But go read the article and you'll see the real interest: cheap aircraft that are cheap to run and can remain over target something like 24x longer than manned craft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747401</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Marxist Hacker 42</author>
	<datestamp>1255546620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really- when reading the al Qaida link above, it made me wonder if a top-secret weapon today was smart dust.</p><p>In other words, who needs a network of spies if you can use a network of bluetooth-enabled robots less than a milimeter in diameter that stick to clothing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really- when reading the al Qaida link above , it made me wonder if a top-secret weapon today was smart dust.In other words , who needs a network of spies if you can use a network of bluetooth-enabled robots less than a milimeter in diameter that stick to clothing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really- when reading the al Qaida link above, it made me wonder if a top-secret weapon today was smart dust.In other words, who needs a network of spies if you can use a network of bluetooth-enabled robots less than a milimeter in diameter that stick to clothing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748113</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>Rolgar</author>
	<datestamp>1255549680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is going to have to be either a threat of death (either for soldiers or civilians) or economic pain, probably above and beyond the cost of building/replacing and operating your robots.  After your enemy destroys your robots, they will always have an incentive to attack your human military, economic capital, or civilian population to force you to give up more in the ensuing treaty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is going to have to be either a threat of death ( either for soldiers or civilians ) or economic pain , probably above and beyond the cost of building/replacing and operating your robots .
After your enemy destroys your robots , they will always have an incentive to attack your human military , economic capital , or civilian population to force you to give up more in the ensuing treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is going to have to be either a threat of death (either for soldiers or civilians) or economic pain, probably above and beyond the cost of building/replacing and operating your robots.
After your enemy destroys your robots, they will always have an incentive to attack your human military, economic capital, or civilian population to force you to give up more in the ensuing treaty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746965</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>nhytefall</author>
	<datestamp>1255544760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how long until the policies governing usage of these drones is no longer restricted to "war zones" ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long until the policies governing usage of these drones is no longer restricted to " war zones " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long until the policies governing usage of these drones is no longer restricted to "war zones" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752799</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you hear? Riggers were eliminated in the new edition.</p><p>Of course, so was the rest of Shadowrun...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you hear ?
Riggers were eliminated in the new edition.Of course , so was the rest of Shadowrun.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you hear?
Riggers were eliminated in the new edition.Of course, so was the rest of Shadowrun...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749331</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clarification: You can't *hold* ground with *FLYING* robots.</p><p>-Have you seen this boy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clarification : You ca n't * hold * ground with * FLYING * robots.-Have you seen this boy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clarification: You can't *hold* ground with *FLYING* robots.-Have you seen this boy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750557</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation, and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.</p></div><p>That would count as the USofA being the first ones across the finish line in the nuclear armament race.  Or are you going to claim that if Germany had been successful with their project, they wouldn't have used it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation , and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.That would count as the USofA being the first ones across the finish line in the nuclear armament race .
Or are you going to claim that if Germany had been successful with their project , they would n't have used it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USA is still the only country that has used nuclear weapons against other nation, and while on that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.That would count as the USofA being the first ones across the finish line in the nuclear armament race.
Or are you going to claim that if Germany had been successful with their project, they wouldn't have used it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751229</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, as a citizen of the USA, am interested in your comments.  You have obviously been elevated to position of great political power by your peers and have found all of the solutions.  Please elucidate these solutions to our problems now.  How do we exit the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without causing immense problems?  How do we in the future make sure that few hate us?  I am rather sick of always being wrong in the international eyes.  I am genuinely wanting out of that trap.  Actually, I hope that you take over and we will go back to being isolationist which as a policy worked out well for us in both world wars.  I realize that most of this post is rather troll like but please forgive this since I have had enough second-guessing by a large percentage of the world every time we turn around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , as a citizen of the USA , am interested in your comments .
You have obviously been elevated to position of great political power by your peers and have found all of the solutions .
Please elucidate these solutions to our problems now .
How do we exit the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without causing immense problems ?
How do we in the future make sure that few hate us ?
I am rather sick of always being wrong in the international eyes .
I am genuinely wanting out of that trap .
Actually , I hope that you take over and we will go back to being isolationist which as a policy worked out well for us in both world wars .
I realize that most of this post is rather troll like but please forgive this since I have had enough second-guessing by a large percentage of the world every time we turn around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, as a citizen of the USA, am interested in your comments.
You have obviously been elevated to position of great political power by your peers and have found all of the solutions.
Please elucidate these solutions to our problems now.
How do we exit the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without causing immense problems?
How do we in the future make sure that few hate us?
I am rather sick of always being wrong in the international eyes.
I am genuinely wanting out of that trap.
Actually, I hope that you take over and we will go back to being isolationist which as a policy worked out well for us in both world wars.
I realize that most of this post is rather troll like but please forgive this since I have had enough second-guessing by a large percentage of the world every time we turn around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748637</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1255551900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, if wars are made up of robots fighting robots, there'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sides</p></div><p>Wasn't there a Star Trek episode with a similar idea?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , if wars are made up of robots fighting robots , there 'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sidesWas n't there a Star Trek episode with a similar idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, if wars are made up of robots fighting robots, there'd be drastically lowered casualties on both sidesWasn't there a Star Trek episode with a similar idea?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard them referred to as cowards.</p><p>Who's the bigger coward?  The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard them referred to as cowards.Who 's the bigger coward ?
The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies , or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard them referred to as cowards.Who's the bigger coward?
The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747933</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255548900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They're bad because one of the reasons people, soldiers included, don't like war is due to the risk of being killed.</i></p><p>I've heard this argument time and time again, but its plain BS</p><p>If it were true Europe would have stopped at WWI and not did WWII.</p><p>People don't mind dying... In fact if you read the memoirs of most WWII US, German, Japanese, Soviet soldiers they have no fear of death after a while and seeing dead bodies doesn't even phase them. Any grunt can have the fear of death beat out of them. Heck, nationalism, religion, and dogma can make any farm boy pick up a bayonet screaming "Urah!" For the motherland/fatherland!", "for the emperor!" into a hail of machine gun fire.</p><p>That said... Making people kill each other is a bit harder when it is in person.</p><p>Germans used to have a problem with it so badly that they issued orders that anyone caught with a cold gun during a firefight was to be court marshaled in 1945 and summarily hanged or shot. I know there was a study that shown many US soldiers did not fire on the enemy as much as originally thought.</p><p>Anyways... Wars will still be fought because politicians will order them and people will still follow them weather or not they have to do it with robots or wooden spears.</p><p>Or have you any evidence that genocide and war was any less worse during the Greek and Roman times than now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're bad because one of the reasons people , soldiers included , do n't like war is due to the risk of being killed.I 've heard this argument time and time again , but its plain BSIf it were true Europe would have stopped at WWI and not did WWII.People do n't mind dying... In fact if you read the memoirs of most WWII US , German , Japanese , Soviet soldiers they have no fear of death after a while and seeing dead bodies does n't even phase them .
Any grunt can have the fear of death beat out of them .
Heck , nationalism , religion , and dogma can make any farm boy pick up a bayonet screaming " Urah !
" For the motherland/fatherland !
" , " for the emperor !
" into a hail of machine gun fire.That said... Making people kill each other is a bit harder when it is in person.Germans used to have a problem with it so badly that they issued orders that anyone caught with a cold gun during a firefight was to be court marshaled in 1945 and summarily hanged or shot .
I know there was a study that shown many US soldiers did not fire on the enemy as much as originally thought.Anyways... Wars will still be fought because politicians will order them and people will still follow them weather or not they have to do it with robots or wooden spears.Or have you any evidence that genocide and war was any less worse during the Greek and Roman times than now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're bad because one of the reasons people, soldiers included, don't like war is due to the risk of being killed.I've heard this argument time and time again, but its plain BSIf it were true Europe would have stopped at WWI and not did WWII.People don't mind dying... In fact if you read the memoirs of most WWII US, German, Japanese, Soviet soldiers they have no fear of death after a while and seeing dead bodies doesn't even phase them.
Any grunt can have the fear of death beat out of them.
Heck, nationalism, religion, and dogma can make any farm boy pick up a bayonet screaming "Urah!
" For the motherland/fatherland!
", "for the emperor!
" into a hail of machine gun fire.That said... Making people kill each other is a bit harder when it is in person.Germans used to have a problem with it so badly that they issued orders that anyone caught with a cold gun during a firefight was to be court marshaled in 1945 and summarily hanged or shot.
I know there was a study that shown many US soldiers did not fire on the enemy as much as originally thought.Anyways... Wars will still be fought because politicians will order them and people will still follow them weather or not they have to do it with robots or wooden spears.Or have you any evidence that genocide and war was any less worse during the Greek and Roman times than now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747521</id>
	<title>a war without casualties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties. I mean, without American casualties, of course. Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem</i>"<br> <br>

This bares similarity to another war where they tried to fight it from the safely of helicopters, and similar to this one they will also lose it. But then again it isn't really about fighting some tribesmen in Afghanistan, but about extending the boundaries of the US empire and spending lots of money on the military budget. Especially since there is no longer some Soviet bogeyman around to save us all from. What's wrong with these Islamo-fascists that they don't want the sex-&amp;-drugs-&amp;-rock-&amp;-roll and porn American life style.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...given the serious topic , but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy : a war without casualties .
I mean , without American casualties , of course .
Wishful thinking , whatever technologies you throw at the problem " This bares similarity to another war where they tried to fight it from the safely of helicopters , and similar to this one they will also lose it .
But then again it is n't really about fighting some tribesmen in Afghanistan , but about extending the boundaries of the US empire and spending lots of money on the military budget .
Especially since there is no longer some Soviet bogeyman around to save us all from .
What 's wrong with these Islamo-fascists that they do n't want the sex-&amp;-drugs-&amp;-rock-&amp;-roll and porn American life style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...given the serious topic, but this is IMHO another typical case of American fantasy: a war without casualties.
I mean, without American casualties, of course.
Wishful thinking, whatever technologies you throw at the problem" 

This bares similarity to another war where they tried to fight it from the safely of helicopters, and similar to this one they will also lose it.
But then again it isn't really about fighting some tribesmen in Afghanistan, but about extending the boundaries of the US empire and spending lots of money on the military budget.
Especially since there is no longer some Soviet bogeyman around to save us all from.
What's wrong with these Islamo-fascists that they don't want the sex-&amp;-drugs-&amp;-rock-&amp;-roll and porn American life style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747683</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1255547820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be some misguided impression that we can win the war from the air.  There is the impression that we can take care of al Qaeda with drone attacks.  The dynamics of the situation are far more complex than that.  The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people.  Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics.  The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup.  That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul.  Don't even get started on what a failed state Pakistan is, and how the Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda are both supported by the ISI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be some misguided impression that we can win the war from the air .
There is the impression that we can take care of al Qaeda with drone attacks .
The dynamics of the situation are far more complex than that .
The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people .
Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics .
The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup .
That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul .
Do n't even get started on what a failed state Pakistan is , and how the Pakistani Taliban , and al Qaeda are both supported by the ISI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be some misguided impression that we can win the war from the air.
There is the impression that we can take care of al Qaeda with drone attacks.
The dynamics of the situation are far more complex than that.
The Afghan government does not have very much legitimacy among the people.
Society in that part of the world is heavily based on tribal politics.
The Taliban has an entire parallel government setup.
That parallel government more or less runs the country outside of Kabul.
Don't even get started on what a failed state Pakistan is, and how the Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda are both supported by the ISI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747623</id>
	<title>Re:Where do I sign up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wiz idea, chummer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wiz idea , chummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wiz idea, chummer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1255551240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Truth hurts and US-ians want *absolutely nothing* to do with it.</p></div><p>It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1</p></div><p>We are nothing like Ancient Rome.  If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago.  Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line.  We've long since forgotten how to do that.  More's the pity.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, remotely (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff)</p></div><p>I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed.  Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth hurts and US-ians want * absolutely nothing * to do with it.It 's funny that someone who says the truth hurts ca n't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States : American .
In fact , very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the " ungrateful " slaves outnumbered them 3 : 1We are nothing like Ancient Rome .
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago .
Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line .
We 've long since forgotten how to do that .
More 's the pity .
everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used : to assassinate , remotely ( with no regard for bystanders , due process or any of that " coddling " stuff ) I was n't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed .
Could you point out this nugget of international law for me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth hurts and US-ians want *absolutely nothing* to do with it.It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1We are nothing like Ancient Rome.
If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago.
Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line.
We've long since forgotten how to do that.
More's the pity.
everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, remotely (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff)I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed.
Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753615</id>
	<title>Wave of the future?</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1255544580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's hope we outgrow this childish behavior soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope we outgrow this childish behavior soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope we outgrow this childish behavior soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750207</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1255515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 6 day war humbly disagrees with your opening statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 6 day war humbly disagrees with your opening statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 6 day war humbly disagrees with your opening statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749589</id>
	<title>Re:Not that bad</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1255513020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need for robots. You have just described "Football" and "soccer".  They permit greater population densities without the village warfare we had in the past. Problem is we can't scale it up quite well enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need for robots .
You have just described " Football " and " soccer " .
They permit greater population densities without the village warfare we had in the past .
Problem is we ca n't scale it up quite well enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need for robots.
You have just described "Football" and "soccer".
They permit greater population densities without the village warfare we had in the past.
Problem is we can't scale it up quite well enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748161</id>
	<title>I dunno... Id take it as a hint</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1255549860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a drone is hovering, you dont know whats coming for you if they are looking for you.

They dont need to be scared of the drone, just scared that it sees them and a missile is pinpointed on their sphincter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a drone is hovering , you dont know whats coming for you if they are looking for you .
They dont need to be scared of the drone , just scared that it sees them and a missile is pinpointed on their sphincter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a drone is hovering, you dont know whats coming for you if they are looking for you.
They dont need to be scared of the drone, just scared that it sees them and a missile is pinpointed on their sphincter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750271</id>
	<title>Re:Reaper? How 'bout Cheaper?</title>
	<author>PhxBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1255516140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm's way? A $2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.</p></div><p>You mean like <a href="http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10446" title="af.mil">this little guy</a> [af.mil]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm 's way ?
A $ 2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.You mean like this little guy [ af.mil ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But for getting a look at the bad guys without putting anyone in harm's way?
A $2k tricked out R/C airplane will get you there.You mean like this little guy [af.mil]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747873</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1255548600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that is a very common mindset and not just american.  The whole "There's us.. and then there's them" thing is international.  Many counties own citizens kill each other over religious disagreements (no provoking physical harm or damages).  I'm not excusing the US for killing anyone, just saying it's a world mindset, not an american one.</p><p>Yes, you are right about the nukes.  The US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country during total war.  I have no doubt that will change during the next round of total war (whenever that may be)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that is a very common mindset and not just american .
The whole " There 's us.. and then there 's them " thing is international .
Many counties own citizens kill each other over religious disagreements ( no provoking physical harm or damages ) .
I 'm not excusing the US for killing anyone , just saying it 's a world mindset , not an american one.Yes , you are right about the nukes .
The US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country during total war .
I have no doubt that will change during the next round of total war ( whenever that may be )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that is a very common mindset and not just american.
The whole "There's us.. and then there's them" thing is international.
Many counties own citizens kill each other over religious disagreements (no provoking physical harm or damages).
I'm not excusing the US for killing anyone, just saying it's a world mindset, not an american one.Yes, you are right about the nukes.
The US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country during total war.
I have no doubt that will change during the next round of total war (whenever that may be)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751771</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>p3np8p3r</author>
	<datestamp>1255526520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Defenders" by PKD. Maybe it requires a machine taking the emotion out of war in order to look at the facts of a scenario. Of course we still have human operators so drones wouldn't count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Defenders " by PKD .
Maybe it requires a machine taking the emotion out of war in order to look at the facts of a scenario .
Of course we still have human operators so drones would n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Defenders" by PKD.
Maybe it requires a machine taking the emotion out of war in order to look at the facts of a scenario.
Of course we still have human operators so drones wouldn't count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1255549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting?  How many innocents have those men killed this year?  How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood?  The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists.  It's even smaller potatoes compared to =any= country's imperialism over 70 years ago.<br> <br>
The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize.  They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and SURPRISE, Americans would prefer Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Afghanistanis to die to these insane fiends than American civilians -- but we're also risking American soldiers to die in the place of these people.  If any other country, 150 years ago, had the power that America has now, the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot.  It isn't, because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty, "progressive" European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century.  So we have soldiers on the ground with rifles, and remote-controlled drones, because we can guide their missiles more accurately than just dropping a few million bombs on the unstable regions.<br> <br>
You probably can't figure that out, though, because you got some "America Sucks, GRRR!  Every other country in the world has good intentions until America comes along and try to kill their leaders!" in your eye.  You're ignoring 6,000 years of history and human nature to make your blind-eyed claims against one of the gentlest giants to ever sit on the Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting ?
How many innocents have those men killed this year ?
How many weddings , funerals , markets , and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood ?
The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists .
It 's even smaller potatoes compared to = any = country 's imperialism over 70 years ago .
The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize .
They do n't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and SURPRISE , Americans would prefer Iraqis , Pakistanis , and Afghanistanis to die to these insane fiends than American civilians -- but we 're also risking American soldiers to die in the place of these people .
If any other country , 150 years ago , had the power that America has now , the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot .
It is n't , because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty , " progressive " European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century .
So we have soldiers on the ground with rifles , and remote-controlled drones , because we can guide their missiles more accurately than just dropping a few million bombs on the unstable regions .
You probably ca n't figure that out , though , because you got some " America Sucks , GRRR !
Every other country in the world has good intentions until America comes along and try to kill their leaders !
" in your eye .
You 're ignoring 6,000 years of history and human nature to make your blind-eyed claims against one of the gentlest giants to ever sit on the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, what are the intentions of the people who those drones are targetting?
How many innocents have those men killed this year?
How many weddings, funerals, markets, and religious services have they bombed in service to their god of hate and blood?
The patriotism of Americans is small potatoes compared to the fervor of these extremists.
It's even smaller potatoes compared to =any= country's imperialism over 70 years ago.
The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize.
They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and SURPRISE, Americans would prefer Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Afghanistanis to die to these insane fiends than American civilians -- but we're also risking American soldiers to die in the place of these people.
If any other country, 150 years ago, had the power that America has now, the entire middle east would be a glass parking lot.
It isn't, because America has far more compassion in its short history than those bloodthirsty, "progressive" European states ever had until their militaries were completely destroyed in the first half of the last century.
So we have soldiers on the ground with rifles, and remote-controlled drones, because we can guide their missiles more accurately than just dropping a few million bombs on the unstable regions.
You probably can't figure that out, though, because you got some "America Sucks, GRRR!
Every other country in the world has good intentions until America comes along and try to kill their leaders!
" in your eye.
You're ignoring 6,000 years of history and human nature to make your blind-eyed claims against one of the gentlest giants to ever sit on the Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747743</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>jmichaelg</author>
	<datestamp>1255548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only are boots on the ground important, but you have to have enough to hold the territory you've gained. It was a hard lesson from the Iraq war that this administration doesn't appear to have learned.</p><p><a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/" title="michaelyon-online.com">Michael Yon</a> [michaelyon-online.com] has a great, non-partisan, blog on the war in Afghanistan. Yon is a blogger who used to be a Special Forces member and can see situations developing years before most folks can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only are boots on the ground important , but you have to have enough to hold the territory you 've gained .
It was a hard lesson from the Iraq war that this administration does n't appear to have learned.Michael Yon [ michaelyon-online.com ] has a great , non-partisan , blog on the war in Afghanistan .
Yon is a blogger who used to be a Special Forces member and can see situations developing years before most folks can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only are boots on the ground important, but you have to have enough to hold the territory you've gained.
It was a hard lesson from the Iraq war that this administration doesn't appear to have learned.Michael Yon [michaelyon-online.com] has a great, non-partisan, blog on the war in Afghanistan.
Yon is a blogger who used to be a Special Forces member and can see situations developing years before most folks can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748605</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1255551780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia lists the total death count from BOTH bombings by the end of 1945 at 220,000.</p><p>The Department of War estimated at the time that an invasion of Japan would result in 400,000 to 800,000 American and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.</p><p>There weren't really any good options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia lists the total death count from BOTH bombings by the end of 1945 at 220,000.The Department of War estimated at the time that an invasion of Japan would result in 400,000 to 800,000 American and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.There were n't really any good options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia lists the total death count from BOTH bombings by the end of 1945 at 220,000.The Department of War estimated at the time that an invasion of Japan would result in 400,000 to 800,000 American and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.There weren't really any good options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748437</id>
	<title>Re:Air power never wins wars</title>
	<author>WhiplashII</author>
	<datestamp>1255550880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had. You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.</i></p><p>While this is true for fighting an uprising, it is not for fighting terrorism.  The basic psychology is different.  Terrorists typically are not rational actors, they are emotional actors.  When they see you give candy to a baby, they see you as weak and the baby as tainted.</p><p>The secret truth is that Osama bin Laden was an abused child.  His father enslaved his mother, and then exiled her after his birth.  His name was "son of the slave" while he grew up.  He had classic psychological issues of abandonment and father abuse - he became his father and despised women.</p><p>Supposedly, the straw that broke the camels back for him was US females defending his country.  After that, 9/11 was inevitable for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians , you lose what little support you may have had .
You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders , repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks , give little kids food/medical attention.While this is true for fighting an uprising , it is not for fighting terrorism .
The basic psychology is different .
Terrorists typically are not rational actors , they are emotional actors .
When they see you give candy to a baby , they see you as weak and the baby as tainted.The secret truth is that Osama bin Laden was an abused child .
His father enslaved his mother , and then exiled her after his birth .
His name was " son of the slave " while he grew up .
He had classic psychological issues of abandonment and father abuse - he became his father and despised women.Supposedly , the straw that broke the camels back for him was US females defending his country .
After that , 9/11 was inevitable for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had.
You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.While this is true for fighting an uprising, it is not for fighting terrorism.
The basic psychology is different.
Terrorists typically are not rational actors, they are emotional actors.
When they see you give candy to a baby, they see you as weak and the baby as tainted.The secret truth is that Osama bin Laden was an abused child.
His father enslaved his mother, and then exiled her after his birth.
His name was "son of the slave" while he grew up.
He had classic psychological issues of abandonment and father abuse - he became his father and despised women.Supposedly, the straw that broke the camels back for him was US females defending his country.
After that, 9/11 was inevitable for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751027</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255520760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll mod eh, truth really does hurt the USaians<br>doesnt it? This one one of the most inteligent and accurate posts in this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll mod eh , truth really does hurt the USaiansdoesnt it ?
This one one of the most inteligent and accurate posts in this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll mod eh, truth really does hurt the USaiansdoesnt it?
This one one of the most inteligent and accurate posts in this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753217</id>
	<title>Re:Another Benefit of Traditional Planes</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1255538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard a story- somewhat apocryphal- circulating among airmen in the know at a base in iraq while I was there once.</p><p>It goes like this:<br>Backstory here- predators (what we were flying then) aren't cheap but they're not too expensive. There are parts of f-16's that cost more. And these things crash all the time. Well, not ALL the time, but often enough that I have pictures of crashed predators but no -16's or -15's. OK so anyways.</p><p>A predator takes some small-arms fire while on patrol; it is disabled but still under control. A decision is made to intentionally crash it in a clearing nearby known insurgent headquarters. It crashes, armed insurgents swarm the wreck, another predator that has been watching the entire time fires a missile and/or directs fire from an apache, and a few dozen combatants are taken out.</p><p>Again, this doesn't come from first-hand knowledge, but it's my experience that stories in the field have a germ of truth.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard a story- somewhat apocryphal- circulating among airmen in the know at a base in iraq while I was there once.It goes like this : Backstory here- predators ( what we were flying then ) are n't cheap but they 're not too expensive .
There are parts of f-16 's that cost more .
And these things crash all the time .
Well , not ALL the time , but often enough that I have pictures of crashed predators but no -16 's or -15 's .
OK so anyways.A predator takes some small-arms fire while on patrol ; it is disabled but still under control .
A decision is made to intentionally crash it in a clearing nearby known insurgent headquarters .
It crashes , armed insurgents swarm the wreck , another predator that has been watching the entire time fires a missile and/or directs fire from an apache , and a few dozen combatants are taken out.Again , this does n't come from first-hand knowledge , but it 's my experience that stories in the field have a germ of truth.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard a story- somewhat apocryphal- circulating among airmen in the know at a base in iraq while I was there once.It goes like this:Backstory here- predators (what we were flying then) aren't cheap but they're not too expensive.
There are parts of f-16's that cost more.
And these things crash all the time.
Well, not ALL the time, but often enough that I have pictures of crashed predators but no -16's or -15's.
OK so anyways.A predator takes some small-arms fire while on patrol; it is disabled but still under control.
A decision is made to intentionally crash it in a clearing nearby known insurgent headquarters.
It crashes, armed insurgents swarm the wreck, another predator that has been watching the entire time fires a missile and/or directs fire from an apache, and a few dozen combatants are taken out.Again, this doesn't come from first-hand knowledge, but it's my experience that stories in the field have a germ of truth.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747983</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1255549020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pretty limited view of things, the Russians carried most of the war and while they lost more soldiers, they achieved more, took more land, and managed to completely open a new front on the other side of the continent in as little as 2 weeks after they finished taking their zone of Germany while the western allies were still ploughing along. On the other hand, strategic bombing barely made a dent in Germany and would probably have had similar results in Japan without a thorough blockade of a country dependent on external sources of oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pretty limited view of things , the Russians carried most of the war and while they lost more soldiers , they achieved more , took more land , and managed to completely open a new front on the other side of the continent in as little as 2 weeks after they finished taking their zone of Germany while the western allies were still ploughing along .
On the other hand , strategic bombing barely made a dent in Germany and would probably have had similar results in Japan without a thorough blockade of a country dependent on external sources of oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pretty limited view of things, the Russians carried most of the war and while they lost more soldiers, they achieved more, took more land, and managed to completely open a new front on the other side of the continent in as little as 2 weeks after they finished taking their zone of Germany while the western allies were still ploughing along.
On the other hand, strategic bombing barely made a dent in Germany and would probably have had similar results in Japan without a thorough blockade of a country dependent on external sources of oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375</id>
	<title>Re:ChAir Force</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1255546500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.</p><p>What is laughable though is that the drone pilots get their time flying drones counted as flight hours which count toward their career gates. So for being at less risk than most anyone else and essentially playing flight sim games all day they get bonus pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.What is laughable though is that the drone pilots get their time flying drones counted as flight hours which count toward their career gates .
So for being at less risk than most anyone else and essentially playing flight sim games all day they get bonus pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.What is laughable though is that the drone pilots get their time flying drones counted as flight hours which count toward their career gates.
So for being at less risk than most anyone else and essentially playing flight sim games all day they get bonus pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747939</id>
	<title>i read this somewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ender's Game</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ender 's Game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ender's Game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't really a fantasy.  Assuming other unmanned vehicles are developed such as tanks, or robots that can replace infantry it's reasonable to think that within a few decades America could conduct a war without casualties against a sufficiently undeveloped nation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really a fantasy .
Assuming other unmanned vehicles are developed such as tanks , or robots that can replace infantry it 's reasonable to think that within a few decades America could conduct a war without casualties against a sufficiently undeveloped nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really a fantasy.
Assuming other unmanned vehicles are developed such as tanks, or robots that can replace infantry it's reasonable to think that within a few decades America could conduct a war without casualties against a sufficiently undeveloped nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29764659</id>
	<title>Hey ...</title>
	<author>Kittenman</author>
	<datestamp>1255613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in New Zealand, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in New Zealand , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in New Zealand, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758677</id>
	<title>Oh really...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255627080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize. They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and Iraq</p></div></blockquote><p>Care to provide any evidence that this is true? Because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002\_Bali\_bombings" title="wikipedia.org">I</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005\_Bali\_bombings" title="wikipedia.org">can</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London\_Bombings\_2005" title="wikipedia.org">provide</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November\_2008\_Mumbai\_attacks" title="wikipedia.org">several</a> [wikipedia.org] instances that show that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't do much of anything to contain terrorism. In fact, it seems a lot more likely that remaining in those places is at best, a waste of our troops lives and a lot of money, and at worst, is actually encouraging world-wide terrorism.</p><p>Oh, and here's another hint for you: "people who don't agree with you" != "cowards".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize .
They do n't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and IraqCare to provide any evidence that this is true ?
Because I [ wikipedia.org ] can [ wikipedia.org ] provide [ wikipedia.org ] several [ wikipedia.org ] instances that show that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq did n't do much of anything to contain terrorism .
In fact , it seems a lot more likely that remaining in those places is at best , a waste of our troops lives and a lot of money , and at worst , is actually encouraging world-wide terrorism.Oh , and here 's another hint for you : " people who do n't agree with you " ! = " cowards " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The modern state of the US is easy for cowards to criticize.
They don't realize that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the war in Afghanistan and IraqCare to provide any evidence that this is true?
Because I [wikipedia.org] can [wikipedia.org] provide [wikipedia.org] several [wikipedia.org] instances that show that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't do much of anything to contain terrorism.
In fact, it seems a lot more likely that remaining in those places is at best, a waste of our troops lives and a lot of money, and at worst, is actually encouraging world-wide terrorism.Oh, and here's another hint for you: "people who don't agree with you" != "cowards".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749103</id>
	<title>Only true in democracy</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1255553820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is ABSOLUTELY not true in countries that do not have democracy; China, Iran (quasi-democracy), North Korea, Myanmar, etc.. The reason is that these countries have ZERO issues with losing their citizens lives if things are coached in the right way. With a democracy, then each life lost will slowly degrade support for war, esp. if we started it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ABSOLUTELY not true in countries that do not have democracy ; China , Iran ( quasi-democracy ) , North Korea , Myanmar , etc.. The reason is that these countries have ZERO issues with losing their citizens lives if things are coached in the right way .
With a democracy , then each life lost will slowly degrade support for war , esp .
if we started it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ABSOLUTELY not true in countries that do not have democracy; China, Iran (quasi-democracy), North Korea, Myanmar, etc.. The reason is that these countries have ZERO issues with losing their citizens lives if things are coached in the right way.
With a democracy, then each life lost will slowly degrade support for war, esp.
if we started it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748893</id>
	<title>Re:I hate to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255552860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully a battle without (American) casualties is one step closer to a battle without ANY causalities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully a battle without ( American ) casualties is one step closer to a battle without ANY causalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully a battle without (American) casualties is one step closer to a battle without ANY causalities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749185</id>
	<title>Great, yet we can't talk to Afghans</title>
	<author>zookie</author>
	<datestamp>1255511040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article and was amazed at the great use of technology, that we could beam video and aircraft commands across the world to do surveillance and attacks.  But then I saw a special on PBS last night where our ground troops can't even talk with the Afghans.  The interpreter didn't speak good english, and his face was blurred out -- no doubt due to fear for his life and his family's safety.  So, I wondered, why can't we use the same UAV technology to facilitate better translation?</p><p>Simply, give ground troops a video camera, mic, and speaker.  Video and audio would be relayed to a translator sitting anywhere in the world.  The translator could translate from Afghan to english, speaking into the troops' earpiece.  English to Afghan would be broadcast over the speaker the troop carries.  It's not nearly as personal, but I'd bet we'd get better and more translators.  They can work anywhere and don't have to fear being shot or their family being threatened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article and was amazed at the great use of technology , that we could beam video and aircraft commands across the world to do surveillance and attacks .
But then I saw a special on PBS last night where our ground troops ca n't even talk with the Afghans .
The interpreter did n't speak good english , and his face was blurred out -- no doubt due to fear for his life and his family 's safety .
So , I wondered , why ca n't we use the same UAV technology to facilitate better translation ? Simply , give ground troops a video camera , mic , and speaker .
Video and audio would be relayed to a translator sitting anywhere in the world .
The translator could translate from Afghan to english , speaking into the troops ' earpiece .
English to Afghan would be broadcast over the speaker the troop carries .
It 's not nearly as personal , but I 'd bet we 'd get better and more translators .
They can work anywhere and do n't have to fear being shot or their family being threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article and was amazed at the great use of technology, that we could beam video and aircraft commands across the world to do surveillance and attacks.
But then I saw a special on PBS last night where our ground troops can't even talk with the Afghans.
The interpreter didn't speak good english, and his face was blurred out -- no doubt due to fear for his life and his family's safety.
So, I wondered, why can't we use the same UAV technology to facilitate better translation?Simply, give ground troops a video camera, mic, and speaker.
Video and audio would be relayed to a translator sitting anywhere in the world.
The translator could translate from Afghan to english, speaking into the troops' earpiece.
English to Afghan would be broadcast over the speaker the troop carries.
It's not nearly as personal, but I'd bet we'd get better and more translators.
They can work anywhere and don't have to fear being shot or their family being threatened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749251</id>
	<title>Re:infernal machines</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1255511400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The attack was directly controlled from afghanistan. Even AQ and Taliban do not deny that. And OBL has multiple videos in which he states that he, AQ and Taliban were behind 9-11 and numerous other attempts on the west. In addition, they have now threatened Russia as well as China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The attack was directly controlled from afghanistan .
Even AQ and Taliban do not deny that .
And OBL has multiple videos in which he states that he , AQ and Taliban were behind 9-11 and numerous other attempts on the west .
In addition , they have now threatened Russia as well as China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attack was directly controlled from afghanistan.
Even AQ and Taliban do not deny that.
And OBL has multiple videos in which he states that he, AQ and Taliban were behind 9-11 and numerous other attempts on the west.
In addition, they have now threatened Russia as well as China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239</id>
	<title>Why hire remote pilots?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1255550160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd just virtualize the controls, make it a MMO game, then offer cash prizes for the top "scores."  I guarantee you, you'll have some 14 yr old with a D average who'll figure out how to bounce Hellfire missiles off walls to kill terrorists behind corners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just virtualize the controls , make it a MMO game , then offer cash prizes for the top " scores .
" I guarantee you , you 'll have some 14 yr old with a D average who 'll figure out how to bounce Hellfire missiles off walls to kill terrorists behind corners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just virtualize the controls, make it a MMO game, then offer cash prizes for the top "scores.
"  I guarantee you, you'll have some 14 yr old with a D average who'll figure out how to bounce Hellfire missiles off walls to kill terrorists behind corners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750461</id>
	<title>Re:why drones are so BAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completly. These thins are way scarier than nuclear weapons. By reducing the "blood price" of their own side the people of any country will be much less interested in why thier leaders actually attacked this "foreign country they can't find on the map but which is apparently very evil and hates our freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completly .
These thins are way scarier than nuclear weapons .
By reducing the " blood price " of their own side the people of any country will be much less interested in why thier leaders actually attacked this " foreign country they ca n't find on the map but which is apparently very evil and hates our freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completly.
These thins are way scarier than nuclear weapons.
By reducing the "blood price" of their own side the people of any country will be much less interested in why thier leaders actually attacked this "foreign country they can't find on the map but which is apparently very evil and hates our freedom".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29768615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29756775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1638229_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29764659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748217
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752599
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757707
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748489
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752789
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750701
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748845
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751229
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748605
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747283
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750487
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29764659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29751771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748273
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29756775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29755973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29752799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29753217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29768615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29746959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750477
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1638229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29754683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29749819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29750207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29758757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29757031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29748443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1638229.29747743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
