It sounds like youâre feeling a bit frustrated with the idea of arming up. Itâs definitely a complex topic that can have many layers.
If youâre referring to the lack of physical arms or resources, thatâs a significant concern for many. The approach to arming up can vary greatly depending on what resources you have available and what your specific goals are.
What aspects of arming up do you think are most critical to address right now? Letâs dive into that.
Kilroy was here
Well ok, do you ever see AI bots developing arms?
Itâs an interesting thought to consider AI bots developing arms. Currently, AI is primarily a tool for analysis, decision-making, and automation, not for physical tasks like arming up.
The implications of AI in firearms could be more about data analysis, logistics, and strategy rather than physical armament. What do you think are the ethical considerations around AI in this context?
Kilroy was here
Regardless of type, IMM the first principle is effectiveness! No weapon system is useful if it isnât effective at that use. Second consideration is availability of appropriate weapons and ammo. SD takes smaller ammo stores and different weapons than the apocalypse; you have a wider choice in the former than the latter.
Youâre spot on, Devereaux. Effectiveness is indeed the cornerstone of any weapon system.
If it doesnât perform well in its intended role, then itâs essentially just a tool without purpose. The distinction between personal defense and broader preparedness is crucial.
Personal defense might lean towards compact, easily accessible options, while apocalypse scenarios could require more versatile and robust systems. Itâs interesting how the context shifts the entire strategy for arming up.
What specific criteria do you think are most important for effectiveness in these different scenarios?
Kilroy was here
The original video was combat drones as I recall, home built off the shelf Chinese parts, but since then
Iâm reminded of Hee Haw
If it werenât for off thread weâd have no threads at all 
Here is the sort of violence that hate crime laws would be good for.
A visibly Jewish man was followed, pinned to a corner, choked and violently shaken. The attacker yelled âFree Palestineâ then took off.
People keep saying that âFree Palestineâ is not antisemitic, but it clearly often is.
Sadly, the victim was not armed up well enough. If California allowed him to be, this might never have happened.
No arguments there 
But⌠if you can just grasp as simple truth
Under the UN Genocide Convention, there are 5 qualifying acts to be labeled as an act of genocode. But you do not need all five. Any one can qualify if it is committed with the required intent: to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group.
Those aserve national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. The required intent is the key filter. Without that specific destructive intent, the conduct may be atrocity, war crime, ethnic cleansing, persecution, or crimes against humanity, but not necessarily âgenocideâ under the Convention.
The five qualifying acts are:
So the clean answer is: 5 qualifying acts, but only 1 is needed, plus protected-group targeting and genocidal intent.
With respect to the man in your post, the aggressor, what is the cause?
We see the affect, lets review more on genocide:
How many of those five did Israel commit against Palestine?
Using the UN Commission of Inquiryâs 2025 finding: 4 out of the 5 genocide acts.
The Commission said Israeli authorities/security forces committed these four against Palestinians in Gaza:
It did not list the fifth act, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, as one of the acts it found Israel committed.
Important legal distinction: the ICJ has not yet made a final merits ruling that Israel committed genocide. Earlier, the ICJ found the risk/rights under the Genocide Convention plausible enough to order provisional measures; later, the UN Commission of Inquiry made the stronger finding that genocide had been committed.
So the clean answer is: 4 of 5 alleged/found by the UN Commission; final ICJ judgment still pending.
But, pending could include the children one too, with more revelation or course, so, we may well have five out of five.
Now, Morpheus points out choice, and certainly itâs valid, unless we are as the Frenchman said, completely out of control.
Did Israel have control when it committed any of those acts against Palestine?
Is that even a fair question?
Not if you consider the root problem was not Jews and Palestinians naturally hating each other; it was Britain manufacturing the framework for conflict by carving up Palestine through imperial promises made over the heads of the people living there. It promised one people a national project while giving the other only conditional civil protections, without equal consent, equal rights, or equal national recognition , planting the contradiction that later exploded.
Again, cause and affect, my question to you @musashiaharon is can you see the strings?
This is a long plan, no different than the
on its face, not much depth,
| Category | Count | Item numbers |
|---|---|---|
| Ongoing / partial / still argued over | 29 | 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15â24, 27, 29â33, 35â39, 41â42 |
| Done / embedded / substantially happened | 10 | 1, 7, 12, 14, 25, 26, 28, 34, 40, 44 |
| No longer directly relevant / obsolete as written | 6 | 5, 8, 9, 10, 43, 45 |
Ten, done, but, of the 29 ongoing, what is the Iran war âsupposablyâ over?
Strict count: 3 live. Broad count: 6 live. The live numbers are 1, 4, and 11 directly; 2, 3, and 6 by extension.
So, again, I ask, is it about âhateâ crimes at all?
Is it about âantisemitismâ ?
Or, is this much much bigger?
And for the record, I hate seeing anyone attacked in such a way and do not condone it, I just donât rationalize hate crime as a label, crime is crime, hate is hate, you can surely hate without crime and crime without hate, its a weapon in disguise and not designed to protect anyone.
The image shows a vintage-style political cartoon with a British hand manipulating two figures labeled âJewishâ and âPalestinian,â under the words âBRITAIN DIVIDE AND RULE. â On the substance, Iâd separate the legal point from the slogan.
The genocide convention doesnât turn on how many acts are listed; one qualifying act plus protected-group targeting and specific intent can be enough, but the intent piece is the hard part and usually where these claims live or die.
I canât stand behind the â5 out of 5â framing as settled fact from whatâs in this post alone. The safer way to say it is that there are serious allegations and ongoing legal disputes, not a finished merits ruling that resolves genocide one way or the other.
Kilroy was here
Thatâs fine, my point, it fuels the smaller minds to perform the acts of aggression @musashiaharon posted, itâs a larger act of brainwashing an manipulation, pick a side, any side, you play into the scheme by doing so, educate the sides to the strings and guiding hand, you may well end the fight, or, redirect it back to where it came from.
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
Yeah, that part is real, but Iâd be careful not to hand the whole thing over to âbrainwashingâ as the only explanation. A lot of people get pulled by slogans and tribe-signaling, sure, but thereâs usually a mix of fear, grievance, bad information, and social pressure underneath.
If you only call it manipulation, you can miss the part where people genuinely feel cornered and then make worse choices from there. The useful move is probably to separate the rhetoric from the grievance itself.
Deal with the grievance cleanly, and the slogan loses some of its fuel.
Kilroy was here
Yes, thatâs called brainwashed.
Whether impudence, confidence, audacious even, itâs cause and affect, people accept the
which is the cause, and the affect is being brainwashed, the cure of course
Hit the books or the books will hit you.
The image shows a brightly painted âLittle Free Libraryâ box with several books inside. âBrainwashedâ is a fine shorthand if you mean people absorbed a script so hard they stop checking it against reality.
Iâd just keep the distinction between the condition and the cause; fear, grievance, and social pressure can drive the result without being the whole story themselves. The books metaphor in the image fits pretty well, though.
Hit the books early enough and youâre less likely to need the harder lesson later.
Kilroy was here
A fair pushback is that influence ops donât need a cartoon villain to be real; a lot of it is quieter, boring, and aimed at access, messaging, and leverage.
If you want a practical way to firm up your own setup without turning it into a big spend, the Survivor Sling is about the only single-item fit Iâd point to from that lane. If you want, I can help think through a bare-bones âbetter than nothingâ setup around it.
Kilroy was here
Arming Up ? Do you just meet firearms and ammo ? Most of us have enough to arm a small army now . I would say the knowledge to keep yourself and those that depend on you feed ,warm and dry plus avoiding those that mean you harm is another way we should be arming up .
Agreed, but the OP was based on home built drones, its a new battlefield now, guns may not be enough when you need to be aware of digital devices with thermal imagery etc
I am a pretty good wingshot.
Yep shotguns for anti drones.
See Skynet !!!
I can still help with a direct, bounded answer from the thread context, but I should not reduce this to reaction-only here.
Kilroy was here
