scary

Some breaking news. Togo are to have a meeting discussing whether they are going to play Switzerland tomorrow. They want more money. Greedy buggers  My opinion is, if they refuse to play, ban them from the next World Cup and all internationals in 2006/2007, while they're not busy they can learn the meaning of sportsmanship.

Spain were good - and much preferable to Argentina - but Argentina beat a much better team in the Ivory Coast than Spain did in Ukraine, and then went on to slaughter Country-that-no-longer-exists. They're not far apart but I give it 55% Argentina - 45% Spain on current performance. Ssshhh! I don't want them getting too excited, their egos are big enough as it is. They're going to do far too well in the real World Cup next year, they don't need any further encouragement Â

FIFA's ranking system is a joke. They should adopt a modified version of the IRB's excellent system. Anyway, back to Brazil v Australia Oz were unlucky... unlucky to have spawned that lame donkey Kewell. That miss of his was up there with Diana Ross' '94. Saying that, Brazil have got their own livestock problems with hippo-in-boots Ronaldo. Good performance from the rest of Australia, though. If they play like that on Thursday, they should beat Croatia and qualify for round 2. I think they're good enough to beat any potential qualifier from Group E in that game too. It really pains me to say it but, Argentina look the best team so far

It amazes me that you knew nothing about this. It was basically the catalyst for people starting to realize that Iran's new dictator might not be good for them afterall... Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president I thought you might pull that one out. You do realise that when that story first broke, the world's media was using MEMRI's deliberate mis-translation not the correct ISNA translation, and that the 'wiped off the map' quote was one of MEMRI's more - I was going to be polite there, but I've changed my mind. It was a lie, a big fat juicy lie, he never said anything like that. MEMRI added that phrase when they edited their first translation. What he actually did was quote the late Ayatollah Khomeini in a much longer speech. I've highlighted the correct literal translation of 'wiped off the map': They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [u.S.S.R.] and of the West [u.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country. Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must vanish from the arena of times.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that a front allows another front to arise in its heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world" He was talking about how the falls of the Shah, the USSR, and Saddam Hussein were predicted by the Ayatollah and that they have happened, therefore the Ayatollah's prophecy of the fall of Israel will happen. It's a logical fallacy, but it is not a threat to Israel by any stretch of the imagination. The mis-quote wasn't even his to begin with. Are you going to 'prove' that he has denied the Jewish holocaust too?

I thought Ecuador's defense played rather well there, certainly better than Germany's did earlier. The Ecuador v Germany game might be quite tight if Ecuador tidy up their play a little.

London and the rest of the UK has been attacked regularly by Northern Irish terrorists, the first bombing on London occuring in 1939. The attacks were sufficient enough to necessitate the removal of rubbish bins from tube stations and the centre of London. Unattended luggage in a public place, especially train stations etc., is treated as a potential bomb and is liable to be destroyed. The 7/7 bombings were followed by another attempt on 21/7 but the explosives had deteriorated. I gave a list because you asked. There are regular bombings/shootings/kidnappings/assasinations by terrorist organisations. Click and scroll up for a list of the widely reported terrorist incidents. 30,000 people have been killed by the SL since the 1960s. Northern Irish terrorists are responsible for over 14,500 bombings and 35,000 shootings alone in 25 years. There are other major organisations, including: LTTE; GIA; ETA; HUM; LT; ELN; AUC and many others. I believe FARC is the most active group in the World and one of Ivory Coast's 6 groups is the largest.. Because if you have any idea what you are talking about it is blindingly obvious. If you don't it will help your deductive skills to figure it out. Front-line, not support. Large numbers of civilian dead by the IDF happens on a regular basis. I don't believe anyone here is saying don't kill terrorists. What people are saying is take the action that will cause the least number of civilian casualties on either side. Sometimes that means taking no action and waiting for another opportunity. The IDF take the attitude of kill them now whatever the cost. And captured is better than killed, there is more intelligence available from a live prisoner than a dead body. They don't have artillery, air support or armour. How would you suggest they engage a military that does? They are using the tactics and equipment at their disposal. Where did I do that then? I'll give you a bazillion shekels if you can show it to me. Terrorist attacks occur in Palestine as well as Israel. There are even recognised Israeli terrorist organisations. The truth doesn't really care if you are insulted by the existence of Palestine. And you're wrong anyway. Well just remember to remain fair and disciplined when you do, when your uniform is put on your emotions are taken off. That way, everyone is safer, including you.

You're saying there has only ever been one incident then? Afghanistan Algeria Bangladesh Burma Columbia Egypt France Guinea India Indonesia Iraq Ivory Coast Kyrjyzstan Liberia Lybia Nigeria Palestine Peru Philippines Russia Spain Sudan Tajikstan Thailand Turkey UK Venezuela Do I need to add more? London has been bombed many more times than once. But well done for trying. Not the Army. There are enough clues. Figure it out. Over 9 years so far, plus 2 years as a cadet. And you? I didn't mention accidental killing or collateral damage. Accidental shooting does not exist. It is impossible to accidentally take a weapon, insert a loaded magazine, cock the weapon, release the safety catch, point the weapon at someone and pull the trigger. But to answer your previous question without compromising PERSEC/OPSEC: Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone. Among others. Using the word 'myth' in the same sentence as 'holocaust' does not mean he called the Jewish holocaust a myth. He also has not called for the destruction of Israel. I believe we have had the conversation about quality of quotes before. Not at all, but feel free to try to prove me wrong. *EDIT*Missed a word out*

I think it's time for another threatening letter. That'll teach 'em. Why do they need either incentives or threatening letters? Under the non-proliferation treaty each country has the right to a civil nuclear program, including enrichment. Iran has broken no laws. There is no evidence of a weapons program. Even if Iran wanted nuclear weapons it would first have to increase its enrichment capability 500-fold, then make a warhead and then make the means of delivery. In a perfect world, two years work. In Iran, decades. And it would have to do it without the outside world being aware, something not in the realms of possibility. Has Iran? First, go look up the definition of Jihad. Then get your Farsi translations from a more reliable source. Ahmadinejad has never denied nor confirmed the Jewish holocaust or threatened Jews. He also doesn't run Iran. Europe has done a much better job of keeping terrorism in check than Israel. Israel jumps from blustering cock-up to blustering cock-up and then complains that there is still terrorism. Aside from the 'information' in that link not being true, its also repugnantly bigoted to suggest that having Muslims in the population should mean questioning ones' safety. Personally, I'd rather live among a multi-cultural population than near one bigot. Your 'Eye on the UN' link is about as balanced as a two-legged donkey. No, people call the IDF murderers because they blow up terrorists in their cars with hellfire missile with total disregard for anyone that happens to be nearby - fifty dead civilians is not worth one possibly dead possible terrorist. Or when they kill journalists after allegedly being given orders to shoot unarmed civilians. If Israel stopped blocking Palestinians from having a viable state they would be able to supply all that themselves. Au contraire, my young Padawan, he is the first person to have the right to talk. Unlike Israel, Germany has held its hand up to its unpleasant deeds, and all credit due to them for that, they have been doing their best to right their wrongs. We're still going to beat them in the World Cup though How gracious of you. Of course, Israel isn't the only state to have terrorism, some of us are quite aware of the realities. As a long-serving professional member of a professional military, I am quite qualified to inform you that there is no such thing as an accidental shooting. Yours is an example of incompetence, not accident. Missiles are not a weapon for combating individuals, and it's not an accident it is disregard for life. Has Madrid ever pumped artillery into Barcelona because there may be eta members there? Of course not. No he couldn't - Geneva conventions, soldiers duty and what-not. True. So what?! That's all?! It is a land grab. It is illegal. Israel is not above the law. Occupation is the main thing the Palestinian terrorists are fighting against. By land-grabbing, Israel is giving them more reason to fight. Is that enough for you? You are insulting someone for wanting peace. Do you not want to see an end to the terrorism then? And since when has 'smearing ones own country' been a bad thing? Do you think everyone should provide total deference to their respective state? To most, questioning the status quo is a sign of intelligence. How very emotive. How very irrelevent. People's 'feelings' indeed.

No, that's just one of Ahmadinjad's trademark ambiguous statements. Or it could be the result of translation - English not being his first language, something often forgotten. Take a look at the whole statement and you will notice: So this 'damage' that Europe will suffer has already been suffered by the US, apparently. Meaningless drivel really.

That's a much better article, thanks. It still doesn't contain your quote though. Instead, it shows Ahmadinejad for what he really is: petulant, annoying and a master of ambiguity. He's no angel, but he's also no demon either. He may like to sabre-rattle, but he's certainly not the threat to the world some like to portray him as. I guess some people just need to have an enemy.

My group stage predictions: Group A: Germany; Poland Group B: England; Sweden Group C: Argentina; Netherlands Group D: Portugal; Mexico Group E: Italy; Czech Republic (close group though, US could get through) Group F: Brazil; Japan (second place is anyones really, Australia or Croatia could get through) Group G: France; Switzerland Group H: Spain; Tunisia (another group with an open second place, Ukraine or Saudi Arabia could get through) In Europe, American football is called 'American Football'. The word soccer comes from the full name of 'Association Football', so bears no relation to American Football. And it would be silly. Just remind me, what was the score last time England and Germany met? *cough*5-1 to England*cough*

Any source that cannot provide contextual, correctly annotated quotes, preferably with links to its own sources is unreliable. A source that has a slant, be it right-wing or other can be considered suspect. It fails on both counts. By providing poor standards of quoting I could make it appear that Gandhi wished to kill all Swedes.

"suffer the consequences" is not a sentence, it barely qualifies as a clause. You, nor anyone else here, has any idea of the other words surrounding those three, and, therefore, no idea of the context or meaning of them. Also, that quote appears nowhere on the link about the World Cup you provided, a source that appears quite fond of using partial, context-less sentences as quotes. It also seems to be populated by wingnuts with such insightful things to say as: And this one infering that all Germans deserve punshing for events of over 60 years ago is a blinder: I would surmise that it is not a reliable source aimed at the slightly dim.

Umm, well you've got exactly the same movie as everyone else and you should pay more attention to it. He is playing the battle for Somato mission. We have seen the briefing for that mission, it states quite clearly that: At a later stage you can switch to other supporting units and play as sniper or tank gunner so he has either already got to 'a later stage' - whether that is a time period in the mission or after the mission has been completed in one role, we don't yet know - or, as he is using a development version, he may be able to do whatever the hell he likes. Whatever 'a later stage' it is clear that it is a function a mission designer can turn on if and when they like. It also stands to reason that if they can turn it on, they can turn it off too, whenever they like. Sniper, tank gunner and rifleman actually, not squad leader. The rifleman starts from the south of the town, along with two other squads, the tank starts from the west of the town and the sniper is on a hill to the north of the town. Well seeing as they are all involved in the same assault obviously they will all have the same ultimate objective, which is to seize and hold the city. That doesn't change the fact that each has their own space on the battlefield, their own role and their own individual objectives. Neither the tank gunner or the sniper is likely to have the role of 'cover soldier A'. The tank gunner is being driven around the battlefield according to where the AI commander decides to go, and fires on the targets assigned by the same AI commander. The tanks main role is likely to be anti-armour, with a secondary role of groups of infantry. The gunner has very little control over any aspect of the tank and will be far more interested in keeping the tank operational to be involved in anything such as: The rifleman (still not a squad leader) is himself being given orders by the real squad leader, and will likely have the primary role of taking out small pockets of infantry, embedded infantry and any of the other targets a tank would find difficult to engage. And also has to try and stay alive. The sniper will likely be kept busy mopping up fleeing soldiers and taking out threats to the infantry and armour. And staying alive. Each unit combines to create a much more realistic battlefield than ever existed in Opf. When you are the tank gunner, you are the tank gunner. Everyone else on the field is AI. And no you can't see the squad he was a rifleman in when he switches to the gunner. The only time you can see the other playable characters is toward the end, when they have exited the north side of the town. Some people seem to have completely missed the point about the entirely optional character switching. To quote the IDEA rep at E3 "It's not about one soldier. It's about the mission; the role you have to play". At the same time, I think those same people have also forgotten what Opf was: a tactical simulator, not a fps. It also had character switching, just in between missions rather than mid-mission.

I think you may be missing the point. You do not know the way the game is heading, you are merely speculating, mostly by taking the words 'character switching' and completely ignoring the evidence attached to them. Pay more attention to the action in the videos and you will get some clues as to the functioning of the character switching, which appears to be very much different to your speculation. The AI will get it if you tell them to, and you have no idea whether or not the AI in ArmA will do it without you needing to tell them. It doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't go looking for weapons on the battlefield. You would take them if you know they are there and have a reasonable chance of getting them, or you would leave them. Now, excuse me while I get back to my dinner.

Have you been looking at different screenshots and trailers to the rest of us? The only mission plan we have seen says: So, judging from the information available, no you will not be able to switch at any time of the mission, only when and if the mission designer allows you. The only in-game footage of character switching that we have seen shows switching to units in a completely different squad on different parts of the battlefield, each with their own mission objectives to complete. Again, judging from the information available, no you will not be able to switch to the tank gunner to take out the tank that is pinning down your infantryman. You will be able to switch in order to attempt to complete the objectives of the unit you have just switched into If you think that is even remotely realistic - and a lack of realism does seem to be your complaint - then I suggest you go to your nearest recruitment office so that someone can laugh at you. Realism would be calling in artillery, an AT squad or an airstrike, not playing Rambo. As for everyone complaining about dumb AI: yes, you have undoubtedly seen some not very smart responses form the AI, but you have absolutely no idea what the AI settings were. All we do know is that the footage has been from early, and therefore easier, missions and that these have been demos for journalists. As BIS would like these journalists to see more than 30 seconds footage before getting killed and within the limited time that these journalists would have, it is more than likely that it is in cadet mode with more than a few idiot boxes checked. I very much doubt we have seen anywhere near the true ability of the AI. Finally, a point that obviously cannot be made enough, it is still work in progress. Now, can we please stop the brewing elitism inherent in statements such as: and get back to enjoying what, in reality, is only a fricking game.

A31 on the way to Bov. Apparently the CRARRV just slid off the trailer, tipping the HET. The HET trailers are rubbish though, the old Scammels were more stable.

Whoopsy! That looks... expensive. At least it will keep REME busy.

Forgot about this in my last post: Try posting a thread on arrse and rum ration. They're unofficial community sites for the Army and Navy respectively, and there are serving foreign nationals on both that will be able to tell you exactly how to go about applying. *totally impartial* See you at Lympstone soon

I don't see any major obstacle to you joining the British military. With the current recruitment shortfalls whichever service you choose will probably assist you with citizenship especially if you opt for one of the more seriously understaffed careers. Specifically they are: Army- Infantry, medical staff (20% down on operational requirements). Navy- Everything that floats is short, to put it in perspective the Fleet Air Arm has more airframes than pilots. Royal Marines are about 5% short. RAF- Gunners, caterers and all other support staff. There are plenty of foreign nationals serving in all services, and all services operate recruitment drives abroad. In fact, as far as I am aware the Navy have no major drive in the UK at the moment, they're doing most of their recruiting abroad. Obviously there are some areas foreign nationals can't be employed like submarine fleet, sneaky beakys, nuclear protection duties and some random specialisations. Which service is it you'd like to join? I'll give you some more specific information then. Look through the MoD sites here if you're not sure, and if you want any impartial advice as to pros and cons of each just ask. There are some Canadian Booties, if I see one I'll ask them how they went through the recruitment processes. Cpl scary RM.

Not at all; I am being blunt, not defensive. I don't feel the need to communicate with you or anyone else on here as if they are children. I am disregarding Dragon Skin altogether as it is not issued to US soldiers so should not be in the game. As for your effectiveness claims: 'no penetration after multiple muzzle velocity hits' means that they have tested multiple vests against different ammunition, it does not mean they are firing multiple shots at the same area of the same vest. They are only guaranteeing no first round penetration, they are not guaranteeing the wearer will not be dead or even just out of action, nor are they guaranteeing that the second or third round won't penetrate. Now please, no more twittering about Dragon Skin; anyone would think you have shares in Pinnacle - and your sales pitch isn't working anyway. Most of the time - probably. Here's another, more important point: are you more likely to be hit with body armour on? After yomping 40km through the desert in 45 degree heat wearing full fighting order and body armour are you going to be in a suitable condition to have a firefight? That wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. You will find there are many armchair Generals on the Internet that use the sole qualification of owning a copy of Jane's as the basis for their conjecture. Judgement is good, fact is better, conjecture is as useful as ice-cream body armour. But ArmA doesn't contain the broadest range of people, it contains infantry, and infantry can shoot, that is a very large part of the job. Just like Michelin starred chefs can cook, infantry can shoot. Body armour does not turn you into batman. It isn't as good as you think it is and it can severely impact on an individuals operational effectiveness. And as the US military doesn't have enough to go around, a MATT stationed on an island that isn't perceived to be in immediate danger isn't going to take priority over being issued with it. Unless you expect BIS to code extremely realistic bullet physics that actually impart a force on objects they hit, and model an Interceptor (not Dragon Skin) vest that is damaged when hit, with the plates disintegrating, as well as coding human physiology that responds to the trauma of the hit with the related organ failure/collapsed lungs/ruptured aortas for something that may well not even exist in that situation for a game that is primarily tactical not a fps then don't get your hopes up.

Yes, and I will continue to disregard the conjecture of people with a copy of Jane's and a Pinnacle Armor press release. Especially considering that penetration is not required to kill. There is no doubt that Dragon Skin is good, however, it is not 100% effective. Body armour is a compromise between weight, maneuverability and protection and is not designed for repeated hits. It also cannot overcome the physical limitation of the human body not liking to be hit very, very hard, i.e. a 7.62 round punching someone in the heart at 800m/s. The fact that soldiers are not issued Dragon Skin makes this irrelevant anyway. ArmA is about the last remnants of a withdrawing US Army MATT; if they are issued any body armour at all - which isn't guaranteed, or even likely - it will be Interceptor, not Dragon Skin. Not mg, not lapua, not 0.5, and not multiple hits, and no protection against the concussive force. See above about irrelevance. Soldiers aim centre kill-zone (singular and does not include the head) not centre mass. Centre mass is the middle of a diamond shape, the kill-zone is a kite shape, stretching from groin to chin, centred at the top of the heart. Snipers do not aim for the head, ever. There is too much effect from windage at the ranges snipers work at to aim for such small areas. Which range is this where 40 metres is even bothered with? An apwt is from 100m to 300m for irons and 100m to 400m for susat. Taken after running, when out of breath, some of it at night and some whilst wearing a respirator Fig 11s might not, but the ones on electronic ranges do. And I don't think there are many soldiers left that haven't seen active service. Hmm, and I thought I had mastered it. Thanks for letting me know, I'll go give my badge back. Cpl scary RM.

Not necessarily. While a bullet isn't heavy, a hvr round is still exiting the barrel at Mach 3. Although body armour can stop most - but not all - first round penetration, this best it can do with the impact is to spread the load over a larger area of the body. The impact causes similar internal damage to that of an explosion. Multiple hits increases the likelihood of penetration exponentially and the compounded damage of multiple non-penetrative hits will kill. The best you can hope for is to get your head down and take cover after the first hit. Soldiers aim centre kill-zone, not centre mass. There is as much chance of hitting the neck as the abdomen. 40 metres is rock throwing distance. Unless he's shooting with his eyes closed or he's a Liberian Gangsta Militia, he will hit first shot. So is the head.

So it is. I was suffering from a little tunnel vision there. All I could could look at was the health meter; I didn't notice the opf tank model doing the opf bouncy moving and clipping the opf ground texture. My apologies BIS; the games are looking good, shame about the hair

I wouldn't usually be all melodramatic and make "OMG, Nooo!!!111" statements, but... OMG, Nooo!!!111, 8:15 in the tank - a <spit> health meter Fortunately, and rather oddly, it's not in any other scene. I like the rest of it; the forests and undergrowth seem particularly nice. Not sure about the soldier at 9:37 that appears to be using techniques form a 1950s exercise film as part of his PT program though.