I want to know what you're trying to get at here.
Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.
Here's where you brought up RULESET
BTW what rule-set are you talking about exactly? (explain the rule set in detail because chances are, your ruleset is unrealistic)
Also, i will answer your question directly upon clarification of the ruleset, AND when you answer mine plus the one on this post.
I was so right lol
In order for me to answer your question: What exactly would the ruleset be?
Meanwhile, You still haven't answered the questions I asked.
Rule set?
(3rd request)
None. It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.
I guess this is where you are claiming to be "sarcastic" instead of just answering the DAM question which i have asked 3 times at this point.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
Still avoiding the question.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
And still avoiding the question....
OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.
Still avoiding the question like a very rude person. (normally i would say rude MF'er
the above was from page 11 only lol
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
And still yet again avoiding it.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
See a pattern here? lol
The questions result from a sarcastic post that you took literally.
What a matter with you? you can't read? and then you have the nerve to accuse me of skimming over your garbage? You can't even answer a simple question I had been asking over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?
And if the questions about the "ruleset" are based on sarcasm from you explain why.
Still can't man up.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
Again.....
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here? Or was this a typo?
And over and over.....
You are unaware of the most basic facts of this case, including the function of the National Command Authority, and your questions show that.
Still can't answer..... instead you try and deflect.
If that's the case the questions should be easily answered.
As well as the follow up questions.
Sad Jack, thought you were better than this.
still avoiding them....
How about this...
Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.
If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable. Just let me know.
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests
so finally on page fucking 13 you define your stupid rule set i expose for what it is:
What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?
What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?
What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?
What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?
What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?
What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?
What constitutes a confirmed hijack?
So what to you do? What you normally do RUN to anther angle instead of manning up and address my response:
by posting this:
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Look at how many times I asked you to define the rule-set Jack! 10? 12?....................13 fucking times!
You are being one weak ass piece of shit. You are being dishonest. If you can't continue in a reasonable manner I am through with you.
PS: You know what i fucking meant when i said:
Now the funny part: When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.
Quote
In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle.