Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th

Yes. Of course they are.



:rolleyes:

I take no issue with the fact that red mists exists. I take no issue with the fact that soldiers are trained not to let it take them over. And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors.
Your example is of Paratroopers. So-called "Special Forces" who are assault troops. To use them as an example of the average soldier or infantryman misses the point
But I also claim that the police are trained not to let it take them over too. And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors. And that sometimes both soldiers and police succumb to it.
It works so well that we have far more examples of police succumbing to the red mist under pressure than we do of soldiers, even when the soldiers are in situations that are far more dangerous.
It is your absolute failure to acknowledge that soldiers ever fuck up and you constant comparison of their 100% reliability with the police who you plainly consider a bunch of amateur fuckwits that leads to me concluding that you are (a) pro-military and (b) anti-police. Not any "assumption" on my part - the fact of what you write.
Anyone who's familiar with my posting history knows that I'm critical of the military, and even you know that I've never attributed 100% reliability to the military (although, in your usual slap-dash way, I'm sure you've inferred it), and that you have indeed made an assumption and are attempting to dress it up as a fact.
If it's a fact rather than an inference on your part, post up some proof. If you can't, then be quiet. :)
 
Are they? And do we? Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.

Accepting gains fought for in the past and now letting those be taken without even a word?

Or is it: 'Fuck you, I'm all right Jack'?
 
i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.

It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.

The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears. As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.

so here we have it, give in, don't resist, you can't win, if you resist we will hit you harder both literally and with the force of law.

go home kids, keep your head down and whilst you can grumble and complain about being shafted by the ruling class any attempt to actually do something to get them off your back will be beaten down.

you must feel so proud you pinkerton scab fuck.
 
If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught). The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant. It does not give you the right to break the law. Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.

Where did this fuckwit come from?
 
That's fine - then don't complain when people get hurt

And neither should you, because one day they might be fighting for something you agree with, even though I doubt this because you seem to be a passive-aggressive sort.

edit: if you pick a fight with the police, fine expect to get hit - but those who peacefully had their liberty removed, were batoned, charged with horses and treated like shit, don't deserve even your contempt.
 
It's mostly referring to WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc. It does say this though; "Superior training currently used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual." There certainly wasn't any 'superior training' given to soldiers of those said wars, unlike today where there is superior & intensive training.
Note that they're all conflicts were large amounts of conscripts were deployed to front-line service.
It's not a particularly good article either. Lots of assertion but bugger-all sourcing.
Grossman's "On Killing" is an interesting read, though, as it digs into the military psychology side of things (I bought it about 3 years ago at the same time as I bought Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence", which is also a good book).

Where did you pluck that one from? I've never professed to any such thing.

Projection, innit. :)
 
And neither should you, because one day they might be fighting for something you agree with, even though I doubt this because you seem to be a passive-aggressive sort.

edit: if you pick a fight with the police, fine expect to get hit - but those who peacefully had their liberty removed, were batoned, charged with horses and treated like shit, don't deserve even your contempt.

I dont like to see children hurt but more will if this carries on.
 
You sometimes get it in conscript armies - mainly because they're not indoctrinated to the same degree, the main aim being to turn out bodies that can fire a rifle reasonably accurately, but in a modern military, it's massively less likely, especially given the input from psychologists into training over the last 40 years.

There was an interesting documentary on this a while ago - US Civil War rifles were found chocka full of shot and they couldn't work out why. Then they realised that they were pretending to fire on queue but weren't actually pulling the trigger. They'd then get more led shot and stuff it back down the barrel. Military training as far as i can see in recent years (post WWII) was focused around dehumanisation of people to the point where their personality was all but removed from their thinking.

Im sure this goes part way to explaining why many riot police seem to have that glazed look in their eyes and think nothing of smacking people over the head. Maybe the post traumatic stress will get them....
 

No laughing matter when you bear in mind that two armed coppers believed that Harry Stanley's table leg in a carrier bag looked "entirely consistent" with a gun.

How long before it's trotted out as an excuse for some pre-emptive head-bashing?
"He had in his hand something that looked entirely consistent with a cosh, your honour. It was only when my colleagues and I had beaten him to the ground that we noticed it was actually a cheese baguette".
 
Back
Top Bottom