You … DO realize wars do not have a 100% death rate, right? You DO understand “casualty” can refer to someone who has only been wounded enough to stop fighting, right?
I fail to see what I had mentioned in the comment that lead you to believe that I thought wars have a 100% death rate or that the word casualty did not include the injured.
Probably the, “I never know what to understand” coupled with the, “wait, NOW they’re not sacrificial lambs??”
Both are true. Both they get used and abused on the battlefield AND the survivors are going back to civilian life still rapists and murderers. You are clearly believing in a false dichotomy about who survives war.
You … DO realize wars do not have a 100% death rate, right? You DO understand “casualty” can refer to someone who has only been wounded enough to stop fighting, right?
I fail to see what I had mentioned in the comment that lead you to believe that I thought wars have a 100% death rate or that the word casualty did not include the injured.
Probably the, “I never know what to understand” coupled with the, “wait, NOW they’re not sacrificial lambs??”
Both are true. Both they get used and abused on the battlefield AND the survivors are going back to civilian life still rapists and murderers. You are clearly believing in a false dichotomy about who survives war.
It’s the fact that there is no contradiction unless you believe “sacrificial lambs” would have a 100% death rate.