DS Forums

 
 

R A F mayham


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-07-2016, 22:35
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,224
Not true. Concealed carry is legal in NI, on the mainland, you can apply for a CC permit if your job or lifestyle means you may be at such risk you need to carry a firearm.
And how many CC permits do you think are given out in the uk. the uk does not allow firearms to be carried. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, are armed. Mainland uk police officers are not
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-07-2016, 23:34
academia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 16,299
Then if its a war, stop calling it murder when they kill our soldiers. Or call it murder every time a British soldier kills a terrorist. You just can't have it both ways.
The terrorists will kill anybody whether he's a soldie or not. The armed forces shouldn't have to deal with on their home territory.j Can you imagine Churchill opening the gates of the country to Nazi storm troopers?
academia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2016, 23:37
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,729
Sometimes these stories are not quite what they first appear. Remember the credible threat to kidnap and murder West Midlands police officers.

http://news.sky.com/story/threat-mad...ficer-10379607

This eventually became.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-36399687
Ah yes, the false claim made by... Amar Tasaddiq Hussain... and his subsequent imprisonment. "His aim was to discredit an official within Dawat-E-Islami, a peaceful Muslim prayer group."

So unless the attacked serviceman is a member of a peaceful Muslim prayer group...
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 07:30
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,436
I wonder who'd you'd choose to stand behind (miles behind, I expect) in times of trouble?
I live in one of the richest developed nations on earth. There are no times of trouble.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 07:48
crystallad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,512
I live in one of the richest developed nations on earth. There are no times of trouble.
I bet you live in the country!
crystallad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 07:58
testcard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Middle England
Posts: 991
This story seems to have vanished from the BBC News website, other than a mention in The Papers section.
testcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 08:28
Skyler_Wright
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,501
This story seems to have vanished from the BBC News website, other than a mention in The Papers section.
That's because they are known by the secret service like all the rest.
Skyler_Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 08:35
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,436
I bet you live in the country!
I hate the country. Way too quiet and boring. Born and raised in cities and suburbs.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 08:36
annette kurten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: dole office.
Posts: 35,074
This story seems to have vanished from the BBC News website, other than a mention in The Papers section.
still there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-36853106
annette kurten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 09:08
ayrshireman1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,034
And how many CC permits do you think are given out in the uk. the uk does not allow firearms to be carried. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, are armed. Mainland uk police officers are not
A few, not many. But the fact stands that CC permits ARE given, so you were wrong to say you cannot carry in the UK. The UK DOES allow firearms to be carried, even if its a very small amount. I assumed/assume you were referring to non police/civilians, under which service personnel would be included. I am not talking about the police.
ayrshireman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 09:14
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,623
Locals have been attacking and even occassionaly killing armed forces personal for years up and down the country for the offence of drinking in the wrong pub, looking at a girl funny or having the affront to be stationed nearby.

Nice to see the problem getting recognised.
I think you have the wrong thread. Your irrelevant post is about a different topic.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 09:21
Axtol
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,477
I will call it murder when these cowards jump unarmed service men not on duty and kill them.
You seem to have a problem with the British military, why is that?
They are legitimate targets to our enemy, so I don't call it murder. Our fighters try and kill them, their fighters try and kill ours. Its a (quite depressing) reality of war. I didnt call it murder when our military attacked Jihadi John when he was "off duty" and just driving around. I didnt call it murder when the SEALS jumped Bin Laden when he was sleeping. Maybe according to you fighters should only attack the enemy when they are on duty,but that would be pretty dumb strategically.

The way I see it, when you sign up to be a soldier you are accepting that you might be attacked AT ANY TIME. As a combatant you are a legitimate target for the enemy, even when you are just jogging in your free time - your death would give a tangible military advantage to the enemy because all your skills and experience are lost, regardless of when the attack happened. Of course i dont condone or support this attack - or any attack for that matter. I just see it as an inevitable consequence of all the wars we start.
Axtol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 09:21
NeverEnough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,864
The police may have DNA from the alleged attacker after by all accounts the highly trained serviceman beat the living **** out of him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-attack.html
NeverEnough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 10:15
TerraCanis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mysterious East
Posts: 5,825
The police may have DNA from the alleged attacker after by all accounts the highly trained serviceman beat the living **** out of him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-attack.html
Well, if that's the case it might not take to long to identify him. A common theme in previous attacks has been perpetrators with a history as rather inadequate individuals with a series of convictions for petty crime.
TerraCanis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 10:43
sutie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 25,455
Well, if that's the case it might not take to long to identify him. A common theme in previous attacks has been perpetrators with a history as rather inadequate individuals with a series of convictions for petty crime.



Let's hope so. Although inept this time, these scumbags need to be out of action.
sutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 10:43
grahamzxy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW England
Posts: 9,648
A common sense solution would be to restrict to training on the camp, or jog in pairs or groups, also have headlamp, radio or phone contact available at all times.

Minimise risks and things become rarer, not everyone is happy with Syrian air raids, so maybe extra security measures on and around the base would be a good move.
grahamzxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 10:59
Evo102
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
Ah yes, the false claim made by... Amar Tasaddiq Hussain... and his subsequent imprisonment. "His aim was to discredit an official within Dawat-E-Islami, a peaceful Muslim prayer group."

So unless the attacked serviceman is a member of a peaceful Muslim prayer group...
How to miss a point spectacularly.

My point is that stories as first reported in the media do not always pan out as expected or follow the narrative that some DS post have already decided on.
Evo102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 11:05
Aetius_Maralas
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 719
I think you have the wrong thread. Your irrelevant post is about a different topic.
Irrevelant in your mind perhaps, but in reality...

Oh right, the possibility of OMG MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!. makes it a serious issue to you whilst regular assualt murder of servicemen is irrelevant in your mind.

Says a lot about you, quite a disturbing amount actually.
Aetius_Maralas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 11:35
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,623
Irrevelant in your mind perhaps, but in reality...

Oh right, the possibility of OMG MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!. makes it a serious issue to you whilst regular assualt murder of servicemen is irrelevant in your mind.

Says a lot about you, quite a disturbing amount actually.
What a daft post. It's all over the place with diversions, ad hominem, strawman and petulant sarcasm.
I'll not even try to respond, you're diverting on too many fronts.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 11:57
ArtfulDodger_
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Independent United Kingdom
Posts: 3,749
I live in one of the richest developed nations on earth. There are no times of trouble.
Whatever mate.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/148497...ng-mass-brawl/
ArtfulDodger_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 13:02
Axtol
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,477
The armed forces shouldn't have to deal with on their home territory.
We attack our enemy on their home territory, why wouldn't they attack us on ours? Soldiers are legitimate targets in war - That includes OUR soldiers. Now if this is a war, which people are saying it is, our enemy is going to attack our soldiers (and this enemy also attacks civilians too). Why would the enemy care if one of their targets is "off duty"? We didn't care that Jihadi John was "off duty" and just driving around town when we killed him. Was that wrong? Should we have waited until he was actively participating in his role as executioner before killing him, or was it a case of "We have him in our sights, he's a target, we take him out, even though he's not actually doing anything right now".
Axtol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 13:12
valkay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,280
We attack our enemy on their home territory, why wouldn't they attack us on ours? Soldiers are legitimate targets in war - That includes OUR soldiers. Now if this is a war, which people are saying it is, our enemy is going to attack our soldiers (and this enemy also attacks civilians too). Why would the enemy care if one of their targets is "off duty"? We didn't care that Jihadi John was "off duty" and just driving around town when we killed him. Was that wrong? Should we have waited until he was actively participating in his role as executioner before killing him, or was it a case of "We have him in our sights, he's a target, we take him out, even though he's not actually doing anything right now".
Are you a member of ISIS.?
valkay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 13:14
Axtol
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,477
Are you a member of ISIS.?
Nope. And I resent that implication, I'm simply saying that people who fight in a war are legitimate targets for the enemy. That includes our own troops - They are legitimate targets for our enemy, and I don't agree with all this emotional thinking that when the enemy kills "our boys" it's murder, but when we kill them it's fine.

Are you saying that our soldiers should be able to attack the enemy, but the enemy shouldn't be able to attack our soldiers? That would be double standards of the most ridiculous order. British soldiers are "our" boys so of course we hope that they win any fights, but surely we should also accept the reality that the enemy might attack our guys from time to time? It's what happens in war, and everyone is saying this is a war.
Axtol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 13:27
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,274
We attack our enemy on their home territory, why wouldn't they attack us on ours? Soldiers are legitimate targets in war - That includes OUR soldiers. Now if this is a war, which people are saying it is, our enemy is going to attack our soldiers (and this enemy also attacks civilians too). Why would the enemy care if one of their targets is "off duty"? We didn't care that Jihadi John was "off duty" and just driving around town when we killed him. Was that wrong? Should we have waited until he was actively participating in his role as executioner before killing him, or was it a case of "We have him in our sights, he's a target, we take him out, even though he's not actually doing anything right now".
Since it's common knowledge everyone is an intended target I would imagine the posters issue was with the number of enemy terrorists and supporters, in the UK and the poor decisions and lack of foresight that have lead to this current situation.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 13:33
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,729
How to miss a point spectacularly.

My point is that stories as first reported in the media do not always pan out as expected or follow the narrative that some DS post have already decided on.
I didn't miss anything but you might just have missed the irony of the example you chose.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25.