Skyrad 0 #1 June 10, 2006 [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=389956&in_page_id=1811[/URL] Moral of the story, don't fuck with the Parachute Regiment. [URL]http://www.army.mod.uk/para/[/URL]When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #2 June 11, 2006 Quote[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=389956&in_page_id=1811[/URL] Moral of the story, don't fuck with the Parachute Regiment. Quote Good work Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scoop 0 #3 June 11, 2006 Good result guys, stay safe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sockpuppet 0 #4 June 11, 2006 That wasn't an ambush... My RSM on explaining the difference between and ambush and an attack. If after 3 seconds you can still insert your thumb up your arse your not getting ambushed, if you are dead then you were ambushed. ------ Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #5 June 11, 2006 We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #6 June 11, 2006 I have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Dancergirl 0 #7 June 12, 2006 guns eh don't you just love 'em Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #8 June 12, 2006 QuoteI have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. That's why so many ended up in Gitmo, were held (illegally)without trial or counsel for some time, and then had to be released because they just happened to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and were not, in fact combatants at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #9 June 12, 2006 Quote........ But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. So in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. If you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. I agree there is a risk in apopting the policy but that doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later........ they are professional soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #10 June 12, 2006 QuoteSo in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! If I knew I'd be shot if holding a weapon during a firefight? Damn skippy I'd drop it. QuoteI agree there is a risk in apopting the policy but that doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later........ they are professional soldiers. Hesitating in a firefight is a good way to get dead...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #11 June 12, 2006 Quote*** If I knew I'd be shot if holding a weapon during a firefight? Damn skippy I'd drop it.*** ***Hesitating in a firefight is a good way to get dead...*** Do you carry a weapon? If so have you ever heard someone using a firearm unexpectedly? Did you drop your weapon or keep it close to hand just in case? As for hesitating - in an all out war situation then yes sure fire first then ask questions later. But when there are civilians all around you you can't adopt that attitude. No paras died in that incident, they identified the threat first then fired their weapons. Can't see the problem with that myself. It's much better than killing a number of innocent civillians and then having to account for it later and also having to live with the fact that you came under fire and panicked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #12 June 12, 2006 Quoteguns eh don't you just love 'em If you have some point you wish to make, please try harder to express yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #13 June 12, 2006 QuoteSo in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! If I was an innocent gun owner and didn't want to be killed, I would hide and stay out of the way of the soldiers. Anyone who has a gun in their hands in the presence of soldiers in the middle of a firefight, deserves to die as a combatant. Imagine if police had to put up with such a policy in the middle of a mass shooting event. "Hey copper, you can't bother me because I'm pointing my gun at the ground. So just flick off!" QuoteThe poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. They got lucky. QuoteIf you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. Thank you for your stupid assumptions. Quotethat doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later... So once the terrorists hear of this policy, they'll just stand around with the AK's pointed at the ground, wait for the British patrol to pass them by, then raise their guns and shoot the soldiers in the back. Grant the enemy safe harbor and the element of surprise. Yep, that'll work just fine! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #14 June 12, 2006 QuoteI have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. There is a cultral difference here that you don't seem to have taken into account. The farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them????? Bloody hell, I never thought I'd see the day when JohnRich advocated rapid disarmament as an effective form of self defence Also British troops are used to stricter rules of engagement than there American counterparts mainly due to the fact that we've been fighting a 'War on Terror' since 1969 in urban enviroments as well as rural ones under the constant glare of the media spotlight, fully accountable to the law where each instance resulting in a shooting resulted in a inquiry. Consequently the fire discipline of the British soldier is a a higher standard than his contemparys elsewhere.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Dancergirl 0 #15 June 12, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #16 June 12, 2006 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame How about filling in the rest of your profile Dancergirl, Status: Registered User Registered: Jun 5, 2006, 3:10 PM Last Logon: Jun 12, 2006, 1:02 PM Local Time: Jun 12, 2006, 2:35 PM Posts: 55 (7.9 per day) Thats alot of activity in a short while eh? Glad you're on board but while I can only agree with... Quotenot so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... However I don't think that the attack on Americans is all that helpful or warranted. I don't feel that hang your head in shame is a valid or fair comment especialy as in Somalia the US was there to try and eleviate a humanitarian crisis and lost good men as result, what has the US got to be ashamed of there? Nothing. Brave men layed down their lives to do what they belived to be right, to help the people of Somalia while civillians watched the crisis on TV and felt bad until the next comercial break when they went and made a cup of tea. In light of this maybe you should re read your post again and re consider who should hang their head in shame.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #17 June 13, 2006 QuoteIf you have some point you wish to make, please try harder to express yourself. You're talking to artistcalledian, who's only point is to stink up the forum and make monkies out of the moderators. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #18 June 13, 2006 QuoteThe farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them??? Well if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. If the police SWAT team ever attacks my house, I know my best chance to live is to not point guns at them. Doh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #19 June 13, 2006 QuoteHow about filling in the rest of your profile Dancergirl There's only one entry needed in his/her profile: "Troll" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 June 13, 2006 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame Hi Ian...would that be "most disciplined" like the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, or like the un-named unit that caused the Basra Provincial Council to sever relations with the British?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,280 #21 June 13, 2006 QuoteWell if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. Uhh John, I think you've forgotten what the policy that your complaining about is. Go back and read your first post.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #22 June 13, 2006 Quote If I was an innocent gun owner and didn't want to be killed, I would hide and stay out of the way of the soldiers. Anyone who has a gun in their hands in the presence of soldiers in the middle of a firefight, deserves to die as a combatant. Perhaps they had the weapon in their hand defending themselves against the terrorist when you happen to come round the corner........... you still think they deserve to die? Quote QuoteThe poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. They got lucky. Perhaps. There is always an element of luck involved in these situations however professional you are. There are risks involved I'm not disputing that. But by adopting the policy you would like to see you alienate people encouraging them to join the terrorists making the situation worse in the long run. Quote QuoteIf you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. Thank you for your stupid assumptions. You stated the policy should be to fire at anyone carrying a weapon. By doing that innocent civilians could have been killed. Why was it a stupid assumption? Quote Quotethat doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later... So once the terrorists hear of this policy, they'll just stand around with the AK's pointed at the ground, wait for the British patrol to pass them by, then raise their guns and shoot the soldiers in the back. Grant the enemy safe harbor and the element of surprise. Yep, that'll work just fine! The answer to that one is to ban civilians from having firearms That way anyone carrying one is a terrorist or criminal and can be dealt with accordingly I do understand your reasoning on this debate but using heavy handed tactics just acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Also firing blindly to kill a possible terrorist could result in the soldier commiting murder. Here's a situation for you... Imagine you are at home in the garden and suddenly 5 guys jump over the high fence and run across your lawn towards your house. All are armed and firing their weapons at someone unseen. What do you do? Pick up your own weapon? Probably. Then from around the corner a couple of policemen appear but you don't see them as they are behind you. They see you holding your weapon. What do they do? Kill you? Highly unlikely. They have to be sure who you are or what you are doing with your weapon first. Same applies if you operate around civilians in other countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites zoobrothertom 5 #23 June 13, 2006 Airborne!!____________________________________ I'm back in the USA!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #24 June 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them??? Well if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. If the police SWAT team ever attacks my house, I know my best chance to live is to not point guns at them. Doh! If they ever attack anyone without a warrant being served they may want to bring personalized body bags. They are not infallible by any means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Scoop 0 #3 June 11, 2006 Good result guys, stay safe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sockpuppet 0 #4 June 11, 2006 That wasn't an ambush... My RSM on explaining the difference between and ambush and an attack. If after 3 seconds you can still insert your thumb up your arse your not getting ambushed, if you are dead then you were ambushed. ------ Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 June 11, 2006 We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 June 11, 2006 I have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dancergirl 0 #7 June 12, 2006 guns eh don't you just love 'em Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #8 June 12, 2006 QuoteI have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. That's why so many ended up in Gitmo, were held (illegally)without trial or counsel for some time, and then had to be released because they just happened to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and were not, in fact combatants at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #9 June 12, 2006 Quote........ But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. So in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. If you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. I agree there is a risk in apopting the policy but that doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later........ they are professional soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 June 12, 2006 QuoteSo in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! If I knew I'd be shot if holding a weapon during a firefight? Damn skippy I'd drop it. QuoteI agree there is a risk in apopting the policy but that doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later........ they are professional soldiers. Hesitating in a firefight is a good way to get dead...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #11 June 12, 2006 Quote*** If I knew I'd be shot if holding a weapon during a firefight? Damn skippy I'd drop it.*** ***Hesitating in a firefight is a good way to get dead...*** Do you carry a weapon? If so have you ever heard someone using a firearm unexpectedly? Did you drop your weapon or keep it close to hand just in case? As for hesitating - in an all out war situation then yes sure fire first then ask questions later. But when there are civilians all around you you can't adopt that attitude. No paras died in that incident, they identified the threat first then fired their weapons. Can't see the problem with that myself. It's much better than killing a number of innocent civillians and then having to account for it later and also having to live with the fact that you came under fire and panicked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #12 June 12, 2006 Quoteguns eh don't you just love 'em If you have some point you wish to make, please try harder to express yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #13 June 12, 2006 QuoteSo in your opinion the innocent bystanders who have weapons should throw them to the ground and run away...... is that what you would do if people start firing weapons near you? I suspect you'd want to keep hold of yours to defend yourself! If I was an innocent gun owner and didn't want to be killed, I would hide and stay out of the way of the soldiers. Anyone who has a gun in their hands in the presence of soldiers in the middle of a firefight, deserves to die as a combatant. Imagine if police had to put up with such a policy in the middle of a mass shooting event. "Hey copper, you can't bother me because I'm pointing my gun at the ground. So just flick off!" QuoteThe poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. They got lucky. QuoteIf you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. Thank you for your stupid assumptions. Quotethat doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later... So once the terrorists hear of this policy, they'll just stand around with the AK's pointed at the ground, wait for the British patrol to pass them by, then raise their guns and shoot the soldiers in the back. Grant the enemy safe harbor and the element of surprise. Yep, that'll work just fine! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #14 June 12, 2006 QuoteI have a problem with this policy: ...the UK soldiers' rules of engagement prevented them from firing at suspected enemy fighters - even those seen carrying guns - unless they aimed their weapons at British troops, for fear of killing innocent local civilians in a country where carrying a gun is commonplace... "It is very restrictive, but you can't turn round and say they are Taliban. At the end of the day they could just be farmers protecting their crops." I can understand that you don't just shoot everyone who is carrying a gun during a routine patrol. But once an active firefight is in progress, then anyone holding a gun is the enemy. Any farmer who is just carrying a gun to protect his crops will get the hell away from a firefight and ditch his weapon. Anyone else sticking around armed, is a combatant. The soldiers shouldn't have to wait for the gunmen to raise their weapons and point them in their direction before shooting them. This policy is going to get soldiers killed. There is a cultral difference here that you don't seem to have taken into account. The farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them????? Bloody hell, I never thought I'd see the day when JohnRich advocated rapid disarmament as an effective form of self defence Also British troops are used to stricter rules of engagement than there American counterparts mainly due to the fact that we've been fighting a 'War on Terror' since 1969 in urban enviroments as well as rural ones under the constant glare of the media spotlight, fully accountable to the law where each instance resulting in a shooting resulted in a inquiry. Consequently the fire discipline of the British soldier is a a higher standard than his contemparys elsewhere.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dancergirl 0 #15 June 12, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 June 12, 2006 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame How about filling in the rest of your profile Dancergirl, Status: Registered User Registered: Jun 5, 2006, 3:10 PM Last Logon: Jun 12, 2006, 1:02 PM Local Time: Jun 12, 2006, 2:35 PM Posts: 55 (7.9 per day) Thats alot of activity in a short while eh? Glad you're on board but while I can only agree with... Quotenot so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... However I don't think that the attack on Americans is all that helpful or warranted. I don't feel that hang your head in shame is a valid or fair comment especialy as in Somalia the US was there to try and eleviate a humanitarian crisis and lost good men as result, what has the US got to be ashamed of there? Nothing. Brave men layed down their lives to do what they belived to be right, to help the people of Somalia while civillians watched the crisis on TV and felt bad until the next comercial break when they went and made a cup of tea. In light of this maybe you should re read your post again and re consider who should hang their head in shame.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #17 June 13, 2006 QuoteIf you have some point you wish to make, please try harder to express yourself. You're talking to artistcalledian, who's only point is to stink up the forum and make monkies out of the moderators. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #18 June 13, 2006 QuoteThe farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them??? Well if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. If the police SWAT team ever attacks my house, I know my best chance to live is to not point guns at them. Doh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 June 13, 2006 QuoteHow about filling in the rest of your profile Dancergirl There's only one entry needed in his/her profile: "Troll" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 June 13, 2006 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got lucky. not so much a case of luck, more a case of yet again the British army showing why they are generally accepted as the best trained, most dissiplined soldiers in the world.... somalia bay of pigs vietnam Killing more Brits than the Iraqi army did in Gulf War 1 ...... hang your heads in shame Hi Ian...would that be "most disciplined" like the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, or like the un-named unit that caused the Basra Provincial Council to sever relations with the British?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #21 June 13, 2006 QuoteWell if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. Uhh John, I think you've forgotten what the policy that your complaining about is. Go back and read your first post.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #22 June 13, 2006 Quote If I was an innocent gun owner and didn't want to be killed, I would hide and stay out of the way of the soldiers. Anyone who has a gun in their hands in the presence of soldiers in the middle of a firefight, deserves to die as a combatant. Perhaps they had the weapon in their hand defending themselves against the terrorist when you happen to come round the corner........... you still think they deserve to die? Quote QuoteThe poilicy adopted by the British troops seemed to work. They got lucky. Perhaps. There is always an element of luck involved in these situations however professional you are. There are risks involved I'm not disputing that. But by adopting the policy you would like to see you alienate people encouraging them to join the terrorists making the situation worse in the long run. Quote QuoteIf you had been in their shoes no doubt one or two innocent civilians would have been killed. Thank you for your stupid assumptions. You stated the policy should be to fire at anyone carrying a weapon. By doing that innocent civilians could have been killed. Why was it a stupid assumption? Quote Quotethat doesn't give anyone the right to fire first then identify who they are firing at later... So once the terrorists hear of this policy, they'll just stand around with the AK's pointed at the ground, wait for the British patrol to pass them by, then raise their guns and shoot the soldiers in the back. Grant the enemy safe harbor and the element of surprise. Yep, that'll work just fine! The answer to that one is to ban civilians from having firearms That way anyone carrying one is a terrorist or criminal and can be dealt with accordingly I do understand your reasoning on this debate but using heavy handed tactics just acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Also firing blindly to kill a possible terrorist could result in the soldier commiting murder. Here's a situation for you... Imagine you are at home in the garden and suddenly 5 guys jump over the high fence and run across your lawn towards your house. All are armed and firing their weapons at someone unseen. What do you do? Pick up your own weapon? Probably. Then from around the corner a couple of policemen appear but you don't see them as they are behind you. They see you holding your weapon. What do they do? Kill you? Highly unlikely. They have to be sure who you are or what you are doing with your weapon first. Same applies if you operate around civilians in other countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoobrothertom 5 #23 June 13, 2006 Airborne!!____________________________________ I'm back in the USA!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #24 June 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe farmers don't carry firearms to protect the crops so much as to protect themselves and their familys. So are you telling me that these men once the shooting starts and Taliban are all obver the placelooking for targets that they should throw down their guns and just hope thatthe bad guys don't shoot them??? Well if they point guns at the attackers, they're sure as hell going to draw fire. How does that make their families safe? If they aren't part of the fight, and don't want to be, they ought to stay out of it. And that means not pointing guns at people. If the police SWAT team ever attacks my house, I know my best chance to live is to not point guns at them. Doh! If they ever attack anyone without a warrant being served they may want to bring personalized body bags. They are not infallible by any means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
