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

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?

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...

I live in one of the richest developed nations on earth. There are no times of trouble.

I bet you live in the country!

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.

I hate the country. Way too quiet and boring. Born and raised in cities and suburbs.

still there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-36853106

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.

I think you have the wrong thread. Your irrelevant post is about a different topic.

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.

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.

Let's hope so. Although inept this time, these scumbags need to be out of action.

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.

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.

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.

Whatever mate.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/148497...ng-mass-brawl/

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.?

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.

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.

I didn't miss anything but you might just have missed the irony of the example you chose.