I-Am-Annoyed

Registered bored user

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
melcervini Hail Mattis, full of hate. Our troops stand with thee. Blessed art though among enlisted. And blessed is the fruit of thy knife hand. Holy Mattis, father of War. Pray for us heathen, Now and at the hour of combat. Amen.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Here's a video of an officer (from Georgia) explaining the training and methodologies they use for dealing with DUI. He discusses Drug Recognition Expert 13 minutes in, explains the training and the fact that if they pass (like 10% pass rate), they are able to serve as expert witnesses in court.

In this case, the guy did not follow protocol, and did not complete the testing that he was required to do. From having spent a bit of time looking, I haven't found any cases of a person who was given the full test series that did not test positive for drugs, so I will says that the methods they are taught seem to work. Any time though that they do not do ALL of the testing that they are supposed to do, I would say allow the person to walk.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
5cats I guess part of it is that if people don't start to take some sort of responsibility for themselves, rather than saying it was X's fault, we are screwed. 

One thing to keep in mind is the differences between individuals and governments. Every population has its share of saints and shit heads. We tend to notice the shit heads more often due to how our brains work, and frankly the fact that it sells more articles. Think about the differences both in mentality and morality of an average murderer vs the actions of the Third Reich, the Stalinist Soviet purges, The Cultural Revolution, Hundred Flowers, and The Great Leap Forward. One is an atrocity, the other is an industry.

Look both at what the official policies are as well as what is actually being done. Call out the hypocrisy on each side. Don't assume that because one side is doing something you don't agree with, that the other deserves your wholehearted support. Support the actions you think are just, protest the ones you think are not. Make sure you're sure which are which. Place the blame where it belongs. 

Slightly rambling. may be a bit disjointed since I kept changing what I wanted to focus on, my apologies for any parts that aren't clear.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
So lets have some fun.
This camp is a new program, apparently for older teenagers and adults (poster says 16+)
It is run by a professional company that specializes in counter terror, military, police, and professional security training. The instructors are all veterans (10+ years of service according to their site), who have seen combat.

Hamas has been running summer camps for children since at least 2002, seeming to start at about age 5. These camps are run by Ahmed al-Mudallal, a member of the Islamic jihad. 50,000-80,000 children attend annually. They are given military training, including fire arms training for the teenagers, including in how to kidnap IDF soldiers. Some of these children are used to help dig tunnels into Israel. In 2002, a group of teenagers was killed after trying to use the skills they learned in this camp to perform a "martyrdom operation against a settlement"

So why is it so much more upsetting that 15+ years after Hamas starts terrorist summer camps for their children, a group of Israelis start a counter terrorism summer camp for tourists?

Edit: after posting, just wanted to ask people to think for a minute and do some looking on their own before indulging in their gut feelings. It took me maybe 10 minutes to find a shit ton of sources for the stuff i wrote about, and while the majority of them are very pro-Israel (mostly due to the content), there were enough neutral and pro-Palestinian sources to verify the material. The damn world is polarized enough, if you cant stop for a minute to think and engage in a reasoned argument, humanity is going to hit a point where we're killing each other over how you load your toilet paper (of course people who do the roll under should obviously be shot).
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
@_suzuka Havent had a chance to read through the text of the bill, but i assume that it handles brandishing in a similar manner to how open carry works. With open (or concealed) carry, you are legally allowed to carry a weapon on your person. Drawing the weapon outside of a situation where you are legally allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or others is illegal. In some jurisdictions, placing your hand on your weapon (in a manner that would allow you to draw it) is an offense.

So sort of like the idiot 2nd amendment activists who carry their weapons in an unlawful manner, I'm sure idiots with swords and knives are going to have run ins with the police pulling guns on them for doing something stupid and illegal. This law will protect people who know what they're doing, while still getting the morons.

I think you're rarely going to see people walking around with a sword belted on, similarly to rarely seeing a person walking with an open carry long gun. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
prichards114 what you're ignoring is all of the justified police shootings that occur. If this officer had seen the shooter coming with a gun out and killed them, most of us wouldn't have any issue with the shoot, but somehow I think you would have objected.

There is an issue of there being limited transparency in officer involved shootings, partly due to the judicial process (you cannot release any evidence prior to the decision to prosecute), and partly due to the policies of different agencies. What justifies use of force for police is different than it is for civilians, and due to the nature of the job, it needs to be. People in general need to understand that what's initially released in the news rarely gives enough information to understand what happened, and that they should wait for more info before deciding they know what happened.

There are times when the only way to stop a criminal is to shoot them before they can kill an officer or a civilian. When criminals deliberately target police they are just adding to these numbers. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
kalron27 You'd be surprised. We've treated worse people than this in the past. Professional ethics plus the knowledge that if we can save their life, they get to spend a long time in general population rather than getting the easy way out
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
layla_wilson If a 80 pound guy picks a fight with a 200 pound martial artist, who do you expect to do more damage? Strict proportionality is not a valid metric.

One big issue with it is that it is very easy to distinguish between Israeli military deaths vs civilian deaths, as the military wear uniforms. There is no uniform on the part of the terrorists. This makes it very difficult to identify the actual fighters among the population. I'd suggest reading the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report. According to this report, 735 of the 2251 Palestinian fatalities were from armed groups, meaning 68% of casualties were civilians.

In contrast, from the best numbers i can find, the US was responsible for 174k fatalities, of which 112k (low end estimate) are civilians between 2003-2013. I chose to use Iraq due to its more urban environment (more similar to Gaza) compared to Afghanistan, and this interval to avoid issues with ISIS related deaths.

Overall, it seems that Israel is almost on par with the US, which places it far above Russia (90+% civilian casualties in Chechnya)

edit: Just to note, i picked relatively conservative reports for Israeli casualty ratios. There are multiple sources (including the New York Times) that admit that comparing the demographics of the reported casualties and the population shows that males in their early 20's (typical age of armed group members) were affected at a far higher rate than any other. This indicates that the ratio may actually be closer to 50% or less
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Eh, we don't really worry about patients moving, as they're chemically paralyzed for that reason. Any strapping is just to keep limp bodies in a stable orientation.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Heres a post from the gun shop/range that he went to, saying he was editing to change context and more or less full of shit. https://www.facebook.com/doubletapshootingrange/?fref=nf
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: His point is that while no one likes being picked on, trolls will focus on anyone who responds to them regardless of gender. If women are more likely to respond, they will focus on women. If men are more likely to respond, they will focus on men. This is what he understands that you seem not to.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: From what i had always read, the statue was supposed to have been from when he was facing goliath (hence him holding the sling). intense fear has a somewhat shrinking effect ;p
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Its funny that the pic is aimed at the US but skips over what China calls itself. Zhong guo translates as middle kingdom- as in between heaven and earth. We may be pushy and loud, but at least we never said that we we have a divine mandate that makes us better than the rest of the world.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: As of 2006 data (latest i can find released), By political party affiliation, teachers classified themselves as 41 percent Democrats, 29 percent Republicans, and 2 percent other. The remaining 29 percent did not consider themselves as affiliated with any political party. source

Same data shows that 55% of teachers associate themselves as being conservative rather than liberal, but that has been trending downward since 1980
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: The old line about doubting that Iraq had WMD has never made a single bit of sense. It is established as fact that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran their 1980-88 war. The United Nations includes chemical weapons as a type of WMD, quod erat demonstrandum Iraq had WMDs
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: stick this right next to the warning label for di-hydrogen monoxide content and I`m all for it.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: @Mad_Gremlyn except for the parts where the study addresses your issues ;p.

First: the results were similar among civilians, police, and military. Not exactly that the cops are standing out of the crowd there.

Second: this is the best form of testing they have at the moment, until there is enough body cam footage to support a study of its own. There is such a thing as "close enough" in research.

Third: the police clearly stated a valid reason for wanting to hesitate- the desire not to be crucified by the media.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: @Neoptolemos Im not holding a grudge against them, just stating that the world has always accepted the right of conquest, particularly in wars of self defense.
Israel originally allowed for Palestinians to return and take Israeli citizenship, this is where the roughly 20% of Israel`s citizens that are Arabs came from. The majority preferred to wait to reclaim all of Israel.

Personally I`d love for a one state solution to be feasible, but I sincerely believe that there are enough fanatics (on both sides, but mainly the Arab) who would turn that into a blood bath. To clarify the parenthesis above, I mean that there are more Arab extremists who are willing to kill civilians in cold blood than there are Israeli.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: @Neoptolemos sorry get your panties in a twist, but self determination doesnt really come into it. There was a chance at self determination for the Palestinian arabs in 1948, they chose to attack their former neighbors. Sadly, actions have consequences and when they lost the war, they lost land (repeat as needed).

If we want to talk about self determination, you`re really talking about freedom. Lets look at which country allows the most personal freedoms in the region. Israeli arabs have a higher standard of living, the ability to be atheist or gay without being murdered, etc.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: @Neoptolemos Under the Ottoman empire, the area was referred to as southern damascus. After the British took over post WW I, they renamed it Palestine and ruled it as a colony. In 1948, the UN partition was never ratified by the Arab Palestinians. They were never an independent country, though they have a long history of residence, just as many jews did.

That enough history?

I-Am-Annoyed wrote: You forgot the best part, how they train to use these bombs
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: @elkingo when a nuclear power plant fails, nothing happens. Modern designs (sadly the most modern we really have now are decades old due to pressure from environmental groups) are designed with redundant failsafes, and are a hell of a lot safer than any other form of power generation.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: That said, I think the atomic bombs were the best way to end the war. Yes 250k people died, most of whom were civilians, but if we invaded it is quite likely Halsey`s quote would have been prophetic.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote: Some fun facts:

Japan was the most brutal nation in WW2 toward conquered areas. 3-10 million civillians and prisoners of war were killed.

93,941 U.S. military personnel captured and interned by Germany, of whom 1,121 died (a little over a 1% death rate), and 27,465 U.S. military personnel captured and interned by Japan, of whom 11,107 died (more than a 40% death rate)

The last time purple heart medals were produced by the US was during the period when the invasion of Japan was being planned. 70 years, and several wars later and we still have over 120k left.

The feeling at the time was literally that the Japanese were subhuman. Admiral Halsey`s famous quote was "Before we`re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell." The pamphlets were quite probably dropped only as propaganda.