Don't diss the Canadian Military

[Occasionally]

Reading some of the comments, war is a funny thing when you think of it.

On one hand, laws are set so that people and police can't go around shooting like Dirty Harry.

But when it comes to war (especially in other countries), it's like a no holds barred shoot-a-thon. OK, maybe that was a ISIS guy. But was he actively shooting back or terrorizing anyone? Maybe not. Maybe he was chilling out eating dinner with family. Or maybe he was just relaxing outside. No harm, no guns or anything.

So the military still has the right to shoot first, ask questions later?

 

[Calgacus]

I have a hard time understanding how people can celebrate the killing of a human being. It is a sad reflection of the time we live in.

In all of human history no one ever thought "I wonder what the Danes think?"

Why should we start now?

 

[Samranchoi]

The "terrorist" who was killed with this shot, he was targeted for a reason. Isn't it better doing this as opposed to dropping a bomb onto an area and possibly killing many innocent lives? One target, one kill, whereas terrorists are killing innocent people around the world.

 

[Bagilson]

Reading some of the comments, war is a funny thing when you think of it.

On one hand, laws are set so that people and police can't go around shooting like Dirty Harry.

But when it comes to war (especially in other countries), it's like a no holds barred shoot-a-thon. OK, maybe that was a ISIS guy. But was he actively shooting back or terrorizing anyone? Maybe not. Maybe he was chilling out eating dinner with family. Or maybe he was just relaxing outside. No harm, no guns or anything.

So the military still has the right to shoot first, ask questions later?

What the military can shoot and when is governed by the rules of engagement. These can be quite complex. Generally speaking, the target must be carrying a weapon and doing something hostile. A dude just sitting outside would not fall into this category.
You compared the military to the police. This is not a valid comparison in that these two organizations have different purposes and operate in different environments. The police are meant to protect individual citizens from each other, and to some extent to protect the state from individual citizens. The police operated in an environment where the majority or people they meet have no hostile intent and the few that do have hostile intent have vastly inferior firepower/organization/resources.
The military on the other hand is meant to protect the state from other states. They operated in an environment where most of the people they meet are trying to kill them and have comparable firepower.
In modern times, with the advent of non-state entities such as ISIS, this line has become blurred. ISIS has the organization and resources to threaten the existence of the state. The criminal justice system was not designed to deal with threats like them, and hence is incapable of doing so. The sticky point is that they situated themselves interstitially into the civilian population which makes it hard for the military to deal with them.
In my opinion the best way to deal with them is covertly. Simply let the CIA find out who they are and then 'disappear' their key people.

 

[TeeJay]

For the same reason other countries are. Doing our part to fight ISIS. Which if you haven't heard, is a global threat.

But do we care? Let Isis have those countries if the people support them
Waste of resources to try and fight an army that the general public supports

Same thing as Vietnam all over again

The "terrorist" who was killed with this shot, he was targeted for a reason. Isn't it better doing this as opposed to dropping a bomb onto an area and possibly killing many innocent lives? One target, one kill, whereas terrorists are killing innocent people around the world.

Oh this is good would love to hear the reason behind it
See in law, if a person commits a terrorist act they have a trial, get convicted, and go to prison

Our legal system does not allow people to get murdered
Our police get fried in newspapers if they even draw a weapon first

A sniper is at best a fucking coward
And our army is at best a joke

 

[italianguy74]

But do we care? Let Isis have those countries if the people support them
Waste of resources to try and fight an army that the general public supports

Same thing as Vietnam all over again

The general public supports Isis? I knew that whole refugee crisis was one big hoax lol.

I think Isis is not the same as Vietnam, Isis wont stop taking countries until they achieve world domination. Look how fast they moved before military intervention began.

 

[TeeJay]

The general public supports Isis? I knew that whole refugee crisis was one big hoax lol.

I think Isis is not the same as Vietnam, Isis wont stop taking countries until they achieve world domination. Look how fast they moved before military intervention began.

Nam was the exact same thing
Communist regime trying to take over the world
They called it the domino theory under idea that if any one country fell to communism the entire area would be lost

The refugees are the losers in what can be at best termed a civil war
Can you imagine if the southerners fled the US during their war?
Its not like the refugees are the "good guys" or "innocents"

 

[Bagilson]

See in law, if a person commits a terrorist act they have a trial, get convicted, and go to prison

The law is meant to protect citizens from each other and the state. The safeguards embedded within our laws are predicated on the assumption that the state has vastly more power than the individual are are designed to ensure the power of the state is not abused. The system is designed with failsafes that favour the individual based on the (correct) assumption that it is better to have a few unpunished criminals loose in society than to hand the government the tools of tyranny.

Dealing with ISIS and political Islam does not fall into the framework described above. Political Islam is a well organized and well funded state-like organization that has the overthrow of western democracy as its goal. Political Islam is waging an asymmetric war to this end. The failsafes found in normal law are based on assumptions that are simply not valid in this context; we are not dealing with individuals who, on their own, pose no threat to the existence of the nation. We are dealing with members of an organization who are willing and able to destroy our way of life. In short, dealing with political Islam is not a matter of law, but rather a matter of war and must be pursued as such.

A sniper is at best a fucking coward
And our army is at best a joke

I have worked with some of our snipers. They do things that I wouldn't even dream of doing; and I don't scare easily. They spend a lot of their time alone in enemy country. The only thing that keeps them alive is their skill in movement and concealment. If they get caught they are on their own, a two man sniper team up against a large number of very angry enemies who like to burn people alive.

Further, war is not a sport and the point isn't to play fair. The point is to get your job done while keeping your guys safe as possible.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

Why are we still in places like Iraq of Afghanistan?

Target practice.

 

[Keebler Elf]

ISIS is nothing like the North Vietnamese. ISIS is on the verge of being eradicated. There will always be Islamic terrorists and with the annihilation of ISIS that won't change. But ISIS as an entity is about to be eliminated. They're on a death ride to oblivion and the final showdown will come in the next 12 months.

 

[TeeJay]

The law is meant to protect citizens from each other and the state. The safeguards embedded within our laws are predicated on the assumption that the state has vastly more power than the individual are are designed to ensure the power of the state is not abused. The system is designed with failsafes that favour the individual based on the (correct) assumption that it is better to have a few unpunished criminals loose in society than to hand the government the tools of tyranny.

Dealing with ISIS and political Islam does not fall into the framework described above. Political Islam is a well organized and well funded state-like organization that has the overthrow of western democracy as its goal. Political Islam is waging an asymmetric war to this end. The failsafes found in normal law are based on assumptions that are simply not valid in this context; we are not dealing with individuals who, on their own, pose no threat to the existence of the nation. We are dealing with members of an organization who are willing and able to destroy our way of life. In short, dealing with political Islam is not a matter of law, but rather a matter of war and must be pursued as such.

The problem with the "war on terror" analogy is how it fails back home
If what you wrote was true, then explain how agents working for ISIS who have gone so far as to infiltrate Canadian/US soil are somehow afforded protection of law against random execution yet someone with exact same purpose overseas is not

The most true part in your response is the last part; they are not "playing fair" as they prefer to eradicate the groups
When Hitler did this it was genocide, when Canadian military does this they are heros?
No way no how
You can't blame the individual soldiers since they must follow orders but this is nothing more than thinly veiled genocide

 

[Samranchoi]

Oh this is good would love to hear the reason behind it
See in law, if a person commits a terrorist act they have a trial, get convicted, and go to prison

Our legal system does not allow people to get murdered
Our police get fried in newspapers if they even draw a weapon first

A sniper is at best a fucking coward
And our army is at best a joke

So happy to hear you belittle someone who has the balls (something you obviously lack) to do what he does. I am 100% based upon how you hide behind a keyboard (which makes you an even bigger coward and joke) he could take you down with his pinky. The terrorist was dealt with the way he deserved being eliminated. Go back to what you THINK you know something about, sucking your thumb in the corner in your mothers basement. LOSER!!!!!!!!

 

[managee]

I have a hard time understanding how people can celebrate the killing of a human being. It is a sad reflection of the time we live in.

It seems to me that this same achievement has been celebrated by nearly every society that has ever had success when deploying snipers as an asset during war, since snipers started being deployed.

To me, history in general, is the story of killing people as-written by the side who killed more people. I'm not saying it's right...

---

And TeeJay, I'm not calling you stupid, but what you've written here isn't helping to provide effective counter-commentary to OP. The points you're trying to make, were made much better by McNamara.

To me there's a glaring difference between "Vietnam" and the so-called War or Terror. The NVA for the most part wasn't threatening a broader expansion of its vision. I feel recent events in England and France, to which the so-called Islamic State has taken credit for, highlights the need for this organization's eradication.

Will international terrorist groups like al Qaeda or the so-called ISIL ever be eradicated to such an extent that no other group forms out of its ashes? Probably not, at-least (IMO) while Israel exists and there are US troops in Saudi Arabia... but I'd like to be wrong.

 

[Bagilson]

then explain how agents working for ISIS who have gone so far as to infiltrate Canadian/US soil are somehow afforded protection of law against random execution yet someone with exact same purpose overseas is not

That is straight forward. ISIS members in Syria and Iraq are in an active war zone and are dealt with in accordance with ROEs. ISIS members in Canada are not in an active war zone and are dealt with as such. In my opinion, ISIS members outside the war zone are soldiers out of uniform in our territory. That makes them spies and, according to the laws of war they are liable to summary execution.

The most true part in your response is the last part; they are not "playing fair" as they prefer to eradicate the groups
When Hitler did this it was genocide, when Canadian military does this they are heros?

Again, the answer is straight forward. Hitler killed people who had no inclination or ability to harm Germany. Political Islam has clearly stated their intention to harm western civilization and has clearly demonstrated the ability to do so. Apples and oranges.

TeeJay. Your posts are what one would expect from an agent of ISIS conducting disinformation ops.

 

[Toad]

Besides the fact our military is ineffectual and a waste of tax payers money

Why are we still in places like Iraq of Afghanistan?

They are there because you are to weak and cowardly to go over there and do the job yourself.

 

[TeeJay]

So happy to hear you belittle someone who has the balls (something you obviously lack) to do what he does.

Many funny irate posts from our redneck community but this is the best of them

How "brave" is it to sit 2+ miles away sniping at targets who can not possibly fire back at you? As much danger as playing a video game lol

Fuck by this scenario I am sorry but even the suicide bombers are more brave since there is a very real chance they get caught without fulfilling their objective

*edit weird terb filter? Why the fuck is brave - er censored???

 

[Samranchoi]

Many funny irate posts from our redneck community but this is the best of them

How "brave" is it to sit 2+ miles away sniping at targets who can not possibly fire back at you? As much danger as playing a video game lol

Fuck by this scenario I am sorry but even the suicide bombers are more brave since there is a very real chance they get caught without fulfilling their objective

*edit weird terb filter? Why the fuck is brave - er censored???

read some of the opinions in the following. Maybe, just maybe, you will finally understand that bring a sniper is more than taking a few seconds to pull a trigger. I would trust what these individuals say 100% over any asinine comment you have to say

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-sniper-the-safest-position-of-the-military-in-the-battlefield

 

[TeeJay]

read some of the opinions in the following. Maybe, just maybe, you will finally understand that bring a sniper is more than taking a few seconds to pull a trigger. I would trust what these individuals say 100% over any asinine comment you have to say

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-sniper-the-safest-position-of-the-military-in-the-battlefield

ehh... ok...
The link you just posted is saying what I said (sniper being safest position in army) and response was its easy unless someone calls in an airstrike

You do realize ISIS could never have air superiority right?

If there is an actual comment buried in there you think is relevant you could find it but I'm not interested in reading pages of random comments trying to guess which one you think is relevant lol

 

[Samranchoi]

ehh... ok...
The link you just posted is saying what I said (sniper being safest position in army) and response was its easy unless someone calls in an airstrike

You do realize ISIS could never have air superiority right?

If there is an actual comment buried in there you think is relevant you could find it but I'm not interested in reading pages of random comments trying to guess which one you think is relevant lol

Sorry, I thought you could read but being that you are still in diapers........

 

[TeeJay]

Sorry, I thought you could read but being that you are still in diapers........

So nothing on your random link to back up your pov? Just some more random online posters who cheer for army?
Ok then
Case closed


Multiple posts yet not one fact
You just trying to run up our post counts