(June 6, 2018 at 2:23 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(June 5, 2018 at 9:56 pm)CDF47 Wrote: He just always was and He is and He always will be.  He transcends this universe/space time.

Apologies. I didn't realise that you were a muslim.

I am Christian.  Really different religion from Islam.  They do not recognize Jesus as the Son of God which He is.

He transcends time and space, but he gets very upset about knobs going into bums. He's more prudish than England, and that takes some doing.

(June 6, 2018 at 2:42 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:You clearly do not know what cannon fodder means and how it is used.  Since you guys see me as an adversary I can't be cannon fodder.  Cannon fodder is when you sacrifice one of your own

Actually yes you can. Commanders like Genghis Khan use to use captured enemy troops and enemy  civilians as fodder . And Napoleon use to trick spanish artillery into blasting their own troops thus saving his . So enemies can be cannon fodder. Doesn't have to your own troops at all . You clearly don't know much military history. 

Lastly your not worthy of being my enemy

---

Quote:He just always was and He is and He always will be.  He transcends this universe/space time

Special pleading

Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for combatants who are regarded or treated by government or military command as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where combatants are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal; an example is the trench warfare of World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery troops, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced combatants from supposedly more valuable veterans.
The term derives from fodder, as food for livestock. Soldiers are the metaphorical food for enemy cannon fire.[1]
Etymology[edit]
The concept of soldiers as fodder, as nothing more than "food" to be consumed by battle, dates back to at least the 16th century. For example, in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part 1 there is a scene where Prince Henry ridicules John Falstaff's pitiful group of soldiers. Falstaff replies to Prince Henry with cynical references to gunpowder and tossing bodies into mass grave pits, saying that his men are "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better [men]...."
The first attested use of the expression "cannon fodder" supposedly belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet "De Bonaparte et des Bourbons", published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits that prevailed in the end of Napoleon's reign: "On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d'appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon" — "the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts 'the raw material' and 'the cannon fodder'."[2] The English term dates back at least to 1893[3]and was popularized during World War I.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder

Quote:I am Christian.  Really different religion from Islam. 

Not really 

Quote: They do not recognize Jesus as the Son of God which He is.

Does not matter and no he's a fictional character of a derpy mystery cult .

---

(June 6, 2018 at 2:50 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 2:42 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Actually yes you can. Commanders like Genghis Khan use to use captured enemy troops and enemy  civilians as fodder . And Napoleon use to trick spanish artillery into blasting their own troops thus saving his . So enemies can be cannon fodder. Doesn't have to your own troops at all . You clearly don't know much military history. 

Lastly your not worthy of being my enemy

---

Special pleading

Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for combatants who are regarded or treated by government or military command as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where combatants are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal; an example is the trench warfare of World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery troops, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced combatants from supposedly more valuable veterans.
The term derives from fodder, as food for livestock. Soldiers are the metaphorical food for enemy cannon fire.[1]
Etymology[edit]
The concept of soldiers as fodder, as nothing more than "food" to be consumed by battle, dates back to at least the 16th century. For example, in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part 1 there is a scene where Prince Henry ridicules John Falstaff's pitiful group of soldiers. Falstaff replies to Prince Henry with cynical references to gunpowder and tossing bodies into mass grave pits, saying that his men are "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better [men]...."
The first attested use of the expression "cannon fodder" supposedly belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet "De Bonaparte et des Bourbons", published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits that prevailed in the end of Napoleon's reign: "On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d'appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon" — "the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts 'the raw material' and 'the cannon fodder'."[2] The English term dates back at least to 1893[3]and was popularized during World War I.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder

None of that refutes my point that enemy troops, enemy prisoners  or civilians can be used as cannon fodder against enemy lines .And the fact you had to turn to wikipedia shows you have no real knowledge .

(June 6, 2018 at 2:51 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:I am Christian.  Really different religion from Islam. 

Not really 

Quote: They do not recognize Jesus as the Son of God which He is.

Does not matter and no he's a fictional character of a derpy mystery cult .

---

(June 6, 2018 at 2:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for combatants who are regarded or treated by government or military command as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where combatants are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal; an example is the trench warfare of World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery troops, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced combatants from supposedly more valuable veterans.
The term derives from fodder, as food for livestock. Soldiers are the metaphorical food for enemy cannon fire.[1]
Etymology[edit]
The concept of soldiers as fodder, as nothing more than "food" to be consumed by battle, dates back to at least the 16th century. For example, in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part 1 there is a scene where Prince Henry ridicules John Falstaff's pitiful group of soldiers. Falstaff replies to Prince Henry with cynical references to gunpowder and tossing bodies into mass grave pits, saying that his men are "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better [men]...."
The first attested use of the expression "cannon fodder" supposedly belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet "De Bonaparte et des Bourbons", published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits that prevailed in the end of Napoleon's reign: "On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d'appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon" — "the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts 'the raw material' and 'the cannon fodder'."[2] The English term dates back at least to 1893[3]and was popularized during World War I.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder

None of that refutes my point that enemy troops, enemy prisoners  or civilians can be used as cannon fodder against enemy lines .And the fact you had to turn to wikipedia shows you have no real knowledge .

Enemies or civilians used in that way are referred to as human shields or as collateral damage.

Quote:Enemies or civilians used in that way are referred to as human shields or as collateral damage.

Nope shields would be keeping them near your troops as a protective wall . I'm talking about about sending them forward against their own lines by coercion or trickery to absorb incoming fire or disrupt their front formations .And they can both be collateral and cannon fodder as the distinction between civilian and enemy combatant in more ancient times was not a clean cut idea.

(June 6, 2018 at 3:07 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Enemies or civilians used in that way are referred to as human shields or as collateral damage.

Nope shields would be keeping them near your troops as a protective wall . I'm talking about about sending them forward against their own lines by coercion or trickery  to absorb incoming fire  or disrupt their front formations .And they can both be collateral and cannon fodder as the distinction between civilian and enemy combatant  in more ancient times was not a clean cut idea.

I don't believe that fits the definition.

Cannon fodder, can also be used as a term to mean a form of cheap and easy entertainment. For example, the words of a foolish man can be used as cannon fodder (cheap entertainment) to give the rest of the forum members reading this pathetic thread, something to laugh at.

Every post you make in this thread, CDF, is therefore, considered by me, to be cannon fodder.

---

And for your information, CDF, the definition you provided, doesn't fit either. At least not in the context that I meant.

But you already knew that. You were just looking for any excuse to stray away from answering the questions put to you.

Quote:I don't believe that fits the definition

Is it using a group of low value assets(enemies and civilians ) in a driving offensive ahead of your higher value forces (setting aside the civilian /combatant disction which is a recent development ) to disrupt a enemy lines and formations and absorb ordnance ? the answer is yes thus fodder .

(June 6, 2018 at 3:23 am)Joods Wrote: Cannon fodder, can also be used as a term to mean a form of cheap and easy entertainment. For example, the words of a foolish man can be used as cannon fodder (cheap entertainment) to give the rest of the forum members reading this pathetic thread, something to laugh at.

Every post you make in this thread, CDF, is therefore, considered by me, to be cannon fodder.

---

And for your information, CDF, the definition you provided,  doesn't fit either.  At least not in the context that I meant.

But you already knew that. You were just looking for any excuse to stray away from answering the  questions put to you.

What question do you have now?