21 Aug 2016 01:20:34
Robo-Sniper killing machine, "Auto Kill Zones" to protect Israeli borders.
goo.gl/QTEsXc
21 Aug 2016 12:06:14
Tried to find the original source this was taken from because I think the author has got the wrong end of the stick. The weapons are user operated, I think where he's gone wrong is that currently a senior officer has to give permission to fire whilst on the future it will be the operators decision (which would be based on rules of engagement) . There's nothing in the article (other than the authors own words) to suggest the weapons will be automatic.
Tried to find the original source this was taken from because I think the author has got the wrong end of the stick. The weapons are user operated, I think where he's gone wrong is that currently a senior officer has to give permission to fire whilst on the future it will be the operators decision (which would be based on rules of engagement) . There's nothing in the article (other than the authors own words) to suggest the weapons will be automatic.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
21 Aug 2016 22:12:51
Yes I read that Israeli soldiers will run out and give a map, a food hamper and a cuddle to any Palestinians who may have got lost here. No chance any Israeli soldiers will harm any Palestinians here. None. This is actually a humanitarian act by the Israeli military to show Palestinians what lovely caring people they are.
Yes I read that Israeli soldiers will run out and give a map, a food hamper and a cuddle to any Palestinians who may have got lost here. No chance any Israeli soldiers will harm any Palestinians here. None. This is actually a humanitarian act by the Israeli military to show Palestinians what lovely caring people they are.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
22 Aug 2016 09:25:00
Rian, was that aimed at me or just a general rant about Israelis?
Rian, was that aimed at me or just a general rant about Israelis?
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
22 Aug 2016 10:20:56
Mostly them, but I think you're badly mistaken if you believe in the 'rules of engagement' propaganda.
Mostly them, but I think you're badly mistaken if you believe in the 'rules of engagement' propaganda.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
22 Aug 2016 12:35:05
Mate, I'm ex-forces, everything is based on rules of engagement.
Mate, I'm ex-forces, everything is based on rules of engagement.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
22 Aug 2016 12:47:49
Like Bloody Sunday? Was that rules of engagement? You're just another brainwashed (ex) squaddie.
Like Bloody Sunday? Was that rules of engagement? You're just another brainwashed (ex) squaddie.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
{Ed033's Note - Policy is correct, it's how they forward their agendas; with policies. 1 policy is to brainwash everyone who goes into the military. They mostly succeed with brainwashing most people who are or have been in the military.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
{Ed033's Note - i think you'll find that teachers in schools and tutors in colleges and universities would claim the same thing as you just did.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 2 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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?
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?
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
Sarcasm doesn't come over well when written. I got you were being facetious. Certain topics always arouse strong passions.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
23 Aug 2016 00:02:02
muscatred, you are a product of your conditioning.
Your inability to think critically is disappointing, but not surprising.
muscatred, you are a product of your conditioning.
Your inability to think critically is disappointing, but not surprising.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
23 Aug 2016 09:59:59
I rarely watch the videos. The sound quality isn't always great.
I rarely watch the videos. The sound quality isn't always great.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 3 · Disagree · 0
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.
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.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
23 Aug 2016 12:14:26
Rian, your last post was tantamount to putting up a white flag and announcing you've got nothing to say for yourself. I'll put you out of your misery, I won't post on this thread again.
Rian, your last post was tantamount to putting up a white flag and announcing you've got nothing to say for yourself. I'll put you out of your misery, I won't post on this thread again.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
23 Aug 2016 13:40:25
I've never seen anyone react in such a paranoid way to a post that was about an organisation thousands of miles away that they're not connected to.
You start blabbering on about rules of engagement, completely missing the point and then ruining the thread because you have a persecution complex the size of a small town, and you became intensely paranoid thinking you were under attack. You weren't.
You think you're the only one here who can understand the complexities of rules of engagement and you claim to be an expert on the subject. A self proclaimed expert is someone who thinks they cannot learn anything new on their chosen subject. Some who has a completely closed off mindset. Someone who can only be right and never be wrong. Maybe that dogmatic self aggrandising mindset worked when you were trying to impress teenage recruits, but all you've done here is show yourself to be incapable of exploring a subject with even the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity.
I've never seen anyone react in such a paranoid way to a post that was about an organisation thousands of miles away that they're not connected to.
You start blabbering on about rules of engagement, completely missing the point and then ruining the thread because you have a persecution complex the size of a small town, and you became intensely paranoid thinking you were under attack. You weren't.
You think you're the only one here who can understand the complexities of rules of engagement and you claim to be an expert on the subject. A self proclaimed expert is someone who thinks they cannot learn anything new on their chosen subject. Some who has a completely closed off mindset. Someone who can only be right and never be wrong. Maybe that dogmatic self aggrandising mindset worked when you were trying to impress teenage recruits, but all you've done here is show yourself to be incapable of exploring a subject with even the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity.
Agree · 4 · Disagree · 0