Latest replies

23 Aug 2016 11:03:34
Well it's not that recent KP, it took 10 years from start to finish, and the report was published in 2010. Like most people, I was very happy with it. Saville showed no apparent bias, and when David Cameron delivered his apology on behalf of the British government in the house of commons, it was a huge moment, and very welcome.

23 Aug 2016 11:12:02
Oh dear, Muscat I think you're doing a terrific job of trolling yourself.

When you calm down, you might want to go see someone about your paranoia, and your control issues.

23 Aug 2016 10:33:14
Rian, you're either trolling me (in which case bravo, I've bitten) or you're doubling down on an argument that we're having in your head. You've accused me of a number of things (without attempting to counter any point I've made) so let's take a look at your contribution to this dialogue:

1. Your first post was confusing, it seemed to be a sarcastic reply to a point that hadn't been made in the OP or my reply. As it didn't make much sense I asked you to clarify if it was aimed at me.
2. You then decided to make it about me saying that I believed Rules of Engagement (RoE) propaganda. As my only statement on the subject up to that point was that the IDF had them this was an unusual comment to say the least, unless you think the statement 'IDF have RoE' is propaganda.
3. Out of the blue you escalate to Bloody Sunday which, again, isn't really relevant to anything that's been said so far. Then, instead of recognising that being ex-forces literally makes me a professional on matters of RoE and their application you dismiss any oppinion I have. At this point I have been polite and conversational in our exchanges, you have stated that I believe propaganda and that I've been brain-washed, I think it's understandable that in my next post I condescended to you.
4. At this point you're all fired up saying that you're au fait with RoE (without attempting to qualify that statement) . You then continue talking about Bloody Sunday and how RoE were 'deliberately ignored' despite there being no evidence or insinuation that there was anything deliberate about it. You then accuse me of not investigating illegal departures from Rules of Engagement by the IDF despite the fact that I've made no statement on the activity or morality of the IDF. Lastly you double down on my professional qualification on rules of engagement reflecting negatively on my knowledge of the subject. All you have done in this post is (incorrectly) make a point about a matter irrelevant to anything I've said, accuse me of not investigating a subject that I have made no statement on and claim I know nothing about Rules of Engagement despite my years of training on the matter.
5. At this point I've realised you are arguing at me not with me so I attempted to clarify the points I've made. You then try to dismiss your personal aspersions on me as 'healthy sarcasm'. After that you say I can't control this thread despite the fact I haven't tried to, I've just commented on the inaccuracies of it. You say I 'quickly slipped into condescension' despite the fact that you had insulted twice before I said anything negative to you. You then again accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about without ever having attempted to pointthe inaccuracy of anything I've said. My favorite bit is that with absolutely no irony you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about despite the fact that I was agreeing with you.
6. I'm not sure if you've just given up with your last post but you still seem to be convinced we're in an argument despite the fact that at no point have either of us made statement contrary to the other's oppinion.

Rian, in conclusion, you have insulted me without provocation, you have dismissed expert opinion out of hand, you have made statements with no qualification, you have failed to make a counter point to anything I've said and you have remained confrontational despite the fact that I've demonstrated agreement on matters you've raised. You're not very good at this.

23 Aug 2016 09:58:09
I am yes.

23 Aug 2016 09:59:59
I rarely watch the videos. The sound quality isn't always great.

23 Aug 2016 08:20:26
Are you referring to the Saville Inquiry KP?

23 Aug 2016 08:40:20
Thank you KP, of course I was being facetious, just like I was with the Steve Hughes comment which clearly flew over someone's head. Thankfully a couple of others who actually bothered to watch the video got the humour.

23 Aug 2016 00:02:02
muscatred, you are a product of your conditioning.

Your inability to think critically is disappointing, but not surprising.

22 Aug 2016 23:48:42
Sarcasm doesn't come over well when written. I got you were being facetious. Certain topics always arouse strong passions.

22 Aug 2016 22:57:05
Mate, you wrote some guff about believing propaganda and you think I was the one being condescending? I then try and put a stop to the argument and clarify my point, even going so far as to point out that I agree with you on the matter of illegal engagements and you reply with the above. What is wrong with you?

22 Aug 2016 21:02:59
Muscat if you can't appreciate the difference between healthy sarcasm and aggression I can't help you. You didn't start this thread, and the content people add is at their discretion, subject to editorial approval. I'm sorry to have to tell you but you don't get to control the post.

You quickly slipped into condescension as you took very personally a post that was using humour to highlight a deep distrust of the IDF and wasn't aimed at you. So I think you need to not be so quick to think someone is tearing into you when they're just giving their opinion on a subject that you don't have ownership of, and quite frankly don't seem to know much about. The wider context of what this means seems beyond you, and the moment you said 'mate I'm ex-forces' I knew it would be pointless trying to explain anything to you. Your last post just confirmed that.

22 Aug 2016 16:07:45
Rian, let me dial this back, I started by saying that the 'robo-killers' of the original post were actually human operated weapon systems governed by rules of engagement, that statement is true. I gave a flippant response to your point about 'rules of engagement propaganda' partly because you were being strangely aggressive and partly because I don't know what rules of engagement propaganda is, it seemed entirely irrelevant to what I posted. Since then it's become clear that you want to make a point about soldiers not following rules of engagement, whether it be in Hebron or on Bloody Sunday. Surely the point is that on these occasions these soldiers were subject to rules of engagement that they then didn't follow (hence my point about individual errors as opposed to policy) . Either way it doesn't really relate to my original post which was neither pro IDF nor anti, it was simply about the misleading title of the article.


On a personal note I get the feeling you think I'm defending occasions where soldiers break rules of engagement, you couldn't be more wrong. Rules of Engagement are there for very good reasons and are very clear. When soldiers break them they should be punished. One of my biggest criticisms of the army is the way it closes ranks when a soldier screws up and tries to protect them. This undermines the army's mission, tarnishes its reputation and damages public trust. Bloody Sunday was a huge screw up where, as you point out, innocent people lost their lives because the rules weren't followed, it was a disgrace and I would support the prosecution of those involved if they were found guilty in court.


On a last point please read and understand the point people are making before wading in on the attack. All it does is lead to pointless arguments.

22 Aug 2016 14:28:33
I'm fully au fait with rules of engagement, no need to explain how it works, and no need to explain 'individual errors' when it doesn't. In the case of something like Hebron it can be viewed as the action of one individual. In the case of Bloody Sunday however rules of engagement were deliberately ignored, and 14 innocent people were shot dead by the British Army. Not an error. I can go into as much detail as you care.

Rather than investigate even some of the countless illegal departures from rules of engagement by the the IDF over years you choose to simply demonstrate your excellent conditioning by referring to anything that doesn't compute as fantasy.

The fact that you were in the 'forces' has you thinking you are an expert on 'rules of engagement'. The conditioning worked fantastically well on you, you're no longer in the forces but you have managed to stroll back into civilian life with your conceited squaddie arrogance intact. Little do you know how little you know.

22 Aug 2016 14:03:01
Ed, one of my jobs was training recruits. It would be a pretty clever cover up if the people doing the brainwashing didn't know they were doing it. But then again, being one of the controllers, of course I'd say that.

22 Aug 2016 13:39:16
What your mistaking is individual errors for policy. If you'd like me to explain how it works I'll be happy to go into some detail. If you'd prefer me not to spoil your fantasy I'll leave it.

22 Aug 2016 12:47:49
Like Bloody Sunday? Was that rules of engagement? You're just another brainwashed (ex) squaddie.

22 Aug 2016 12:35:05
Mate, I'm ex-forces, everything is based on rules of engagement.

22 Aug 2016 10:20:56
Mostly them, but I think you're badly mistaken if you believe in the 'rules of engagement' propaganda.

22 Aug 2016 09:25:00
Rian, was that aimed at me or just a general rant about Israelis?

22 Aug 2016 01:25:11
Add in a direct email chain between himself and Hillary discussing the approriate action regarding foreign policy. Well, not so much discussing, as telling her how to approach the situation.