Just found a great comment on this video.
Soumyadeep Bag 11 months ago
Not a single black person in the entire video. Just an observation.
Reinhard Gurganstunph 11 months ago
these are LEGAL guns.
You can also see @TheDivineInfidel arguing with people in the comment section on this video.
actually its more logical than that . what happened when you gave the iraqi’s abrams ? ISIS now have them . the last thing we want is our military kit falling in the hands of ISIS , this is why when a tank breaks down in combat and it cant be rescued , its gutted and blown up .
we cant ensure iraq will do that , so it puts in danger our kit . we sold the cezch republic the kit we didnt sell it to iraq .
No, you sold us a particular part (radar that tells pilot whether he has been locked by anti aircraft gun or not) knowing that it will be built into Czech made combat aircrafts which will be manufactured mostly for export (the previous version of the aircraft sold 2.800 pieces).
I really don’t see ISIS taking the plane apart and using the anti-aircraft radar-lock unit to their own benefit.
which is exactly the same as reasonable force , just worded slight differently .
yes so we own that radar system , it would go against that contract to then sell that on to another nation in any shape or form without first clearing it with us .
same argument was had between the UK and US over kit on the F35 when a certain US representive kept blocking us access to certain kit
The UK became increasingly frustrated by a lack of U.S. commitment to grant access to the technology that would allow the UK to maintain and upgrade its F-35s without US involvement. For five years, British officials sought an ITAR waiver to secure greater technology transfer. Although this had the support of the Bush administration it was repeatedly blocked by U.S. Representative Henry Hyde, on the grounds that British laws were insufficient to prevent unauthorised transfer of U.S. technology to third parties
which is what the cezch republic has done "an unauthorised transfer of British technology " to a third party
In what world does “not manifestly disproportionate” equals to “reasonable”?
disproportionate means excessive
so to word that differently your law states you cannot use force which is clearly excessive to the situation
our law under the basis of reasonable force allow us in other words . use force which is appropriate to the situation and not over the top or in other words not excessive
its just the same thing worded differently
The Abrams is extremely expensive to maintain it has a jet engine they lack the proper tools to maintain it, so ISIS will not be able to use them for very long.
It’s different with a plane though, it can grounded hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the combat. The only way ISIS would get a hold of one is if they took over an air field in Iraq, and the Iraqis could just move the aircraft if the airfield is in danger of falling.
the british police have conducted a exercise to test responses to a mass gun attack in a shopping centre . some people seem shocked that the police are trained to step over injured and dead people and advance to kill the terrorists first . i would of thought this would be common sense .
but one police tactic has changed , before the police were trained to hold back and attempt to bring it to a peaceful end but now they’re being trained to "advance to contact " to move right in a kill the gunmen as ISIS have no other motive but to kill .
Who defines what is excessive? What if the court rules you shooting a man with a knife in your home as excessive? What if the jury felt you used excessive force to defend your own life? It doesn’t get much more excessive than killing someone, so technically killing an armed invader could be deemed as excessive, which is absurd.
they have done this already , taking airfield and capturing kit .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:9075, topic:21032”]
The Abrams is extremely expensive to maintain it has a jet engine they lack the proper tools to maintain it, so ISIS will not be able to use them for very long.
[/quote] its not so much them using the kit its more them understanding our systems , their weakness etc r
radio’s and radars are up their with the priority kit to be removed . if a plane goes down , it has to be secured and stripped the same to 100% ensure no kit is stolen
same as any free nation on earth im afraid , you can of course refer to the supreme court and appeal and if their judges deem the ruling to be wrong they will grant you the right of appeal , but as our law states , it cannot be ruled on a black white basis it has to be taken into consideration at in the heat of the moment you wont be worrying about what the law dictates as reasonable you will simply do what has to be done.
British people and common sense don’t mix
That is stupid honestly. If there is an active shooter the police should stop him anyway possible, and worry about their lives over the shooter. Negotiating just gives him more time to kill people.
But they don’t have any jets that i know of or even helicopters right?
Well its highly unlikely that the planes radar would survive the crash, and ISIS has zero anti air capabilities beyond shooting down slow moving helicopters as far as i know. Russia has been bombing the shit out of them and the only planes they have lost were to Turkey.
before terrorist aims were not to simply kill but to get attention and give demands . like in the Iranian embassy siege in london . of course we would never actually negotiate simply buy time to form a roper plan .;
with ISIS its different , they simply want to kill
You might have to worry about afterwards. That’s why the U.S self defense law is better in my opinion. If someone brakes into your home and you feel like your life is threatened take them down. You don’t have to be concerned about excessive force or anything else.
It may sound like wordplay to you, but…
The force may be clearly excessive in the Czech Republic.
It just may not be manifestly excessive.
I.e. it is clearly excessive if I stab you in your hand because you hit me in the face with it. But that doesn’t make it manifestly excessive. Manifestly excessive would be if I stabbed you in the face.
you would be very fucking surprised what survives . its more principle to be honest , the kit is classified and we have to ensure it stays that way . the enemy shouldnt be able to get hold of any information that may put your forces in danger .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:9081, topic:21032”]
and ISIS has zero anti air capabilities beyond shooting down slow moving helicopters as far as i know
[/quote] not completly true
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:9081, topic:21032”]
But they don’t have any jets that i know of or even helicopters right?
[/quote] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZEh8NeAOM
I see, well that sounds better then.
maybe its getting lost in translation
[quote=“snejdarek, post:9084, topic:21032”]
The force may be clearly excessive in the Czech Republic.
[/quote] well no it cannont
manifestly means " clearly "
it simple English Czech law says
" the force cannot be clearly excessive " they have just added a fancy word
the definition of manifestly is
Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.
