We Do Not Kneel

[Great Nepal]

using you as unarmed fodder still helps his military cause

Now you have so completely deviated from original scenario that it isn't funny anymore, just tragic. Original quite from the scenario was "However, you and your followers will be expected to fight as front-line soldiers in a foreign war for the benefit of the dictatorship", unless front line soldiers usually bite the enemy into submission, they will be armed.
Plus in front line, you really dont want people dropping dead around you, has bad effect on morale and some one has to clean up the mess since dead people have terrible habit of not cleaning up after themselves. When you send send anyone to the front line, you will arm them, at best you will hope that enemy is stronger and he will be massacred so you dont look bad but clearly this is not applicable here.

also, you don't if he's winning or not

Irrelevant.

maybe he is winning but he needs to throw more bodies at the enemy minefields to wear them down and lower his ''real'' casualties

Minesweepers haven't been invented? Did all the dogs die?

[Infected Mushroom]

using you as unarmed fodder still helps his military cause

Now you have so completely deviated from original scenario that it isn't funny anymore, just tragic. Original quite from the scenario was "However, you and your followers will be expected to fight as front-line soldiers in a foreign war for the benefit of the dictatorship", unless front line soldiers usually bite the enemy into submission, they will be armed.
Plus in front line, you really dont want people dropping dead around you, has bad effect on morale and some one has to clean up the mess since dead people have terrible habit of not cleaning up after themselves. When you send send anyone to the front line, you will arm them, at best you will hope that enemy is stronger and he will be massacred so you dont look bad but clearly this is not applicable here.

also, you don't if he's winning or not

Irrelevant.

maybe he is winning but he needs to throw more bodies at the enemy minefields to wear them down and lower his ''real'' casualties

Minesweepers haven't been invented? Did all the dogs die?

There has been no deviation whatsoever.

I deliberately used the words ''front-line soldiers'' so as to keep it vague.

A heavily armoured knight on a horse with the best armour could be a front line soldier; a defenceless peasant forced to march at the very front is also a front-line soldier.

Front line = the very first or close to the very first in the action

Soldier = someone with a duty to fight, armed or unarmed

Your pointless death as a frontline soldier wouldn't demoralise the dictatorship's forces because you are clearly seen as an Other by them (through your past history as a rebel).

Minesweepers may or may not have been invented. Again, this is irrelevant. They may be using you as a sacrifice to prove their ruthlessness to the enemy. And I never said anything about the wealth of the dictatorship; this could be a country like Tanzania.

[The Two Jerseys]

Now you have so completely deviated from original scenario that it isn't funny anymore, just tragic. Original quite from the scenario was "However, you and your followers will be expected to fight as front-line soldiers in a foreign war for the benefit of the dictatorship", unless front line soldiers usually bite the enemy into submission, they will be armed.
Plus in front line, you really dont want people dropping dead around you, has bad effect on morale and some one has to clean up the mess since dead people have terrible habit of not cleaning up after themselves. When you send send anyone to the front line, you will arm them, at best you will hope that enemy is stronger and he will be massacred so you dont look bad but clearly this is not applicable here.


Irrelevant.


Minesweepers haven't been invented? Did all the dogs die?

There has been no deviation whatsoever.

I deliberately used the words ''front-line soldiers'' so as to keep it vague.

A heavily armoured knight on a horse with the best armour could be a front line soldier; a defenceless peasant forced to march at the very front is also a front-line soldier.

Front line = the very first or close to the very first in the action

Soldier = someone with a duty to fight, armed or unarmed

Your pointless death as a frontline soldier wouldn't demoralise the dictatorship's forces because you are clearly seen as an Other by them (through your past history as a rebel).

Minesweepers may or may not have been invented. Again, this is irrelevant. They may be using you as a sacrifice to prove their ruthlessness to the enemy. And I never said anything about the wealth of the dictatorship; this could be a country like Tanzania.

"Front-line soldier" explicitly means they're armed and equipped for combat.

Quit trying to twist words around.

[Camicon]

Now you have so completely deviated from original scenario that it isn't funny anymore, just tragic. Original quite from the scenario was "However, you and your followers will be expected to fight as front-line soldiers in a foreign war for the benefit of the dictatorship", unless front line soldiers usually bite the enemy into submission, they will be armed.
Plus in front line, you really dont want people dropping dead around you, has bad effect on morale and some one has to clean up the mess since dead people have terrible habit of not cleaning up after themselves. When you send send anyone to the front line, you will arm them, at best you will hope that enemy is stronger and he will be massacred so you dont look bad but clearly this is not applicable here.


Irrelevant.


Minesweepers haven't been invented? Did all the dogs die?

There has been no deviation whatsoever.

I deliberately used the words ''front-line soldiers'' so as to keep it vague.
*snip*

That is neither ethical or honourable. Eddard would be ashamed of you.

[Infected Mushroom]

There has been no deviation whatsoever.

I deliberately used the words ''front-line soldiers'' so as to keep it vague.

A heavily armoured knight on a horse with the best armour could be a front line soldier; a defenceless peasant forced to march at the very front is also a front-line soldier.

Front line = the very first or close to the very first in the action

Soldier = someone with a duty to fight, armed or unarmed

Your pointless death as a frontline soldier wouldn't demoralise the dictatorship's forces because you are clearly seen as an Other by them (through your past history as a rebel).

Minesweepers may or may not have been invented. Again, this is irrelevant. They may be using you as a sacrifice to prove their ruthlessness to the enemy. And I never said anything about the wealth of the dictatorship; this could be a country like Tanzania.

"Front-line soldier" explicitly means they're armed and equipped for combat.

Quit trying to twist words around.

No there is no such implicit meaning. A soldier is simply someone who fights as part of a military.

Weapons aren't part of the definition. That depends on what the high command chooses to give you. In this case, if the high command is trying to get you killed then they might not give you any weapons.

[Genivaria]

"Front-line soldier" explicitly means they're armed and equipped for combat.

Quit trying to twist words around.

No there is no such implicit meaning. A soldier is simply someone who fights as part of a military.

Weapons aren't part of the definition. That depends on what the high command chooses to give you. In this case, if the high command is trying to get you killed then they might not give you any weapons.

Oh so now it's just 'soldier' ?
Back-pedal more.

[Infected Mushroom]

No there is no such implicit meaning. A soldier is simply someone who fights as part of a military.

Weapons aren't part of the definition. That depends on what the high command chooses to give you. In this case, if the high command is trying to get you killed then they might not give you any weapons.

Oh so now it's just 'soldier' ?
Back-pedal more.

No look at the wording in the OP.

However, you and your followers will be expected to fight as front-line soldiers in a foreign war for the benefit of the dictatorship.

Nowhere does it say you are given weapons or will be trusted or will not be sent on a suicide mission.

[Camicon]

Oh so now it's just 'soldier' ?
Back-pedal more.

No look at the wording in the OP.

The wording you admitted to leaving deliberately vague? Eddard would never do something like that. Nor would Robb, or Jon.

[The Two Jerseys]

"Front-line soldier" explicitly means they're armed and equipped for combat.

Quit trying to twist words around.

No there is no such implicit meaning. A soldier is simply someone who fights as part of a military.

Weapons aren't part of the definition. That depends on what the high command chooses to give you. In this case, if the high command is trying to get you killed then they might not give you any weapons.

"Front line soldier".

Armed.

[Great Nepal]

There has been no deviation whatsoever.

I deliberately used the words ''front-line soldiers'' so as to keep it vague.

A heavily armoured knight on a horse with the best armour could be a front line soldier; a defenceless peasant forced to march at the very front is also a front-line soldier.

Front line = the very first or close to the very first in the action

Soldier = someone with a duty to fight, armed or unarmed

A fighting front line soldier clearly means, to any reasonable person at least, a soldier who is armed and able to fight the enemy soldiers. Further I am curious where you got your definition of soldier from because its actually defined as "a person who serves in an army", a unarmed person will under no circumstances be considered to be "serving in a army" - atleast not any army that we in 21st century would be familiar with. If you want to get more specific, soldier could mean "a private in an army", which is worse for your rather ridiculous definition.

Your pointless death as a frontline soldier wouldn't demoralise the dictatorship's forces because you are clearly seen as an Other by them (through your past history as a rebel).

Irrelevant, your enemy killing people on your side will demoralize any person. But lets assume all the soldiers are brainwashed to hate the rebels because why not - cleaning up the bodies would still demoralizing.

Minesweepers may or may not have been invented. Again, this is irrelevant. They may be using you as a sacrifice to prove their ruthlessness to the enemy. And I never said anything about the wealth of the dictatorship; this could be a country like Tanzania.

Because sending someone to be blown up in a minefield where few people will be able to see the incident for matter of microseconds, after wasting quite a bit of money for transport and logistics is so going to prove ruthlessness to the enemy rather than tiying up the guy and butchering the family and then painfully and publicly torturing him to death with cameras rolling.
Even Tanzania can afford runner dogs; they run through the mines to trigger them.

[Infected Mushroom]

No there is no such implicit meaning. A soldier is simply someone who fights as part of a military.

Weapons aren't part of the definition. That depends on what the high command chooses to give you. In this case, if the high command is trying to get you killed then they might not give you any weapons.

"Front line soldier".

Armed.

Someone who is officially a part of the military and who is expected to fight on the front line (near the very front or at the very front) as part of a suicide unit is still a ''front line soldier.''

Where in the definition is a weapon necessarily attached?

[The Two Jerseys]

"Front line soldier".

Armed.

Someone who is officially a part of the military and who is expected to fight on the front line (near the very front or at the very front) as part of a suicide unit is still a ''front line soldier.''

Where in the definition is a weapon necessarily attached?

What do you fucking expect them to fight with?

[Camicon]

Someone who is officially a part of the military and who is expected to fight on the front line (near the very front or at the very front) as part of a suicide unit is still a ''front line soldier.''

Where in the definition is a weapon necessarily attached?

What do you fucking expect them to fight with?

Their HONOUR. Obviously. Look at how well Eddard and Robb made out with that.

[Great Nepal]

If we can bend and torture any reasonable interpretation of words and phrases, I would like to note that scenario specifies quite specifically that you and your followers will only be expected not compelled to fight for the dictatorship. Therefore you must be able to say "fuck your expectations" and walk away without fighting a single day in dictator's army.

[Infected Mushroom]

Someone who is officially a part of the military and who is expected to fight on the front line (near the very front or at the very front) as part of a suicide unit is still a ''front line soldier.''

Where in the definition is a weapon necessarily attached?

What do you fucking expect them to fight with?

Their fists if they can get up close.

[Infected Mushroom]

If we can bend and torture any reasonable interpretation of words and phrases, I would like to note that scenario specifies quite specifically that you and your followers will only be expected not compelled to fight for the dictatorship. Therefore you must be able to say "fuck your expectations" and walk away without fighting a single day in dictator's army.

This is what you are TOLD by the dictatorship (its still in that paragraph). What this means if that anything that's in that paragraph, the dictatorship may or may not end up honouring or it may end up honouring it in a way that is not in good faith (such as compelling you to fight as an unarmed ''front-line soldier'').

[The Two Jerseys]

What do you fucking expect them to fight with?

Their HONOUR. Obviously. Look at how well Eddard and Robb made out with that.

Ideals are more powerful weapons than guns.

Except on a battlefield, where guns Fucking OwnTM ideals.

[Camicon]

If we can bend and torture any reasonable interpretation of words and phrases, I would like to note that scenario specifies quite specifically that you and your followers will only be expected not compelled to fight for the dictatorship. Therefore you must be able to say "fuck your expectations" and walk away without fighting a single day in dictator's army.

This is what you are TOLD by the dictatorship (its still in that paragraph). What this means if that anything that's in that paragraph, the dictatorship may or may not end up honouring or it may end up honouring it in a way that is not in good faith (such as compelling you to fight as an unarmed ''front-line soldier'').

You're really reminding me of Petyr Baelish right now. With a bit of Varys mixed in.

[Infected Mushroom]

This is what you are TOLD by the dictatorship (its still in that paragraph). What this means if that anything that's in that paragraph, the dictatorship may or may not end up honouring or it may end up honouring it in a way that is not in good faith (such as compelling you to fight as an unarmed ''front-line soldier'').

You're really reminding me of Petyr Baelish right now. With a bit of Varys mixed in.

I see...

[The Two Jerseys]

What do you fucking expect them to fight with?

Their fists if they can get up close.

So now they're not a suicide unit?

Jesus H. Christ, pick a story and stick to it.

[Camicon]

You're really reminding me of Petyr Baelish right now. With a bit of Varys mixed in.

I see...

You know, because your writing is honourless. Castrated. Cowardly. Deceitful. Sycophantic.

[Great Nepal]

If we can bend and torture any reasonable interpretation of words and phrases, I would like to note that scenario specifies quite specifically that you and your followers will only be expected not compelled to fight for the dictatorship. Therefore you must be able to say "fuck your expectations" and walk away without fighting a single day in dictator's army.

This is what you are TOLD by the dictatorship (its still in that paragraph). What this means if that anything that's in that paragraph, the dictatorship may or may not end up honouring or it may end up honouring it in a way that is not in good faith (such as compelling you to fight as an unarmed ''front-line soldier'').

Lacking quotation marks, it is obviously not a reproduction of statement from the dictator but rather the interpretation of the person hearing the statement. If this person, who presumably is the rebel leader, interpreted it in such a manner with no evidence as to his doubt in the writing there must be a reason behind it - perhaps dictatorship has kept its word in the past. There must also be a reason why the person interpreted it as being expected rather than being compelled, since words from an authority figure would instinctively be received as a command this there must have been something that the dictator actually said or in past experience with the dictator which lead to this interpretation.
See I can be pedantic too.

[The Two Jerseys]

This is what you are TOLD by the dictatorship (its still in that paragraph). What this means if that anything that's in that paragraph, the dictatorship may or may not end up honouring or it may end up honouring it in a way that is not in good faith (such as compelling you to fight as an unarmed ''front-line soldier'').

Lacking quotation marks, it is obviously not a reproduction of statement from the dictator but rather the interpretation of the person hearing the statement. If this person, who presumably is the rebel leader, interpreted it in such a manner with no evidence as to his doubt in the writing there must be a reason behind it - perhaps dictatorship has kept its word in the past. There must also be a reason why the person interpreted it as being expected rather than being compelled, since words from an authority figure would instinctively be received as a command this there must have been something that the dictator actually said or in past experience with the dictator which lead to this interpretation.
See I can be pedantic too.

If the dictator is telling us that we'd be spared if we kneel, wouldn't he also have to tell us that we'd be killed if we don't?

Either both scenarios are interpretations, or both are statements. You can't mix and match.

[Great Nepal]

Lacking quotation marks, it is obviously not a reproduction of statement from the dictator but rather the interpretation of the person hearing the statement. If this person, who presumably is the rebel leader, interpreted it in such a manner with no evidence as to his doubt in the writing there must be a reason behind it - perhaps dictatorship has kept its word in the past. There must also be a reason why the person interpreted it as being expected rather than being compelled, since words from an authority figure would instinctively be received as a command this there must have been something that the dictator actually said or in past experience with the dictator which lead to this interpretation.
See I can be pedantic too.

If the dictator is telling us that we'd be spared if we kneel, wouldn't he also have to tell us that we'd be killed if we don't?

Either both scenarios are interpretations, or both are statements. You can't mix and match.

Both are interpretations since there are no quotation marks, or god forbid grammatical incorrect !

[Erasticanius]

I shalln't kneel, for I stand before God, and to him only shall I kneel.