Making the news today....

[Stumpy Grinder]

I agree with most of this. Not the part about me being naive though.

You made my point for me by saying thats its too late sending the army in afrter the event. We need to act sooner.

Sending the army out after the manchester bombings didnt really deter anything it just made people feel bettter. The army arent effective in situations like this as people will just drive around in a van and plow unto people then get out and stab the ones they missed. The army cam do little against this.

 

Once again you show your naivity. The Army were deployed under the MACP role. (Military Aid to the Civil Police). Yes the horse has bolted and locking the stable door is a bit too late! What they were doing though is acting as the police on the streets whilst freeing up police time investigate and do what the police need to do. It doesn't matter who shoots these people, but they need to be shot.

SG

[muttley9050]

Once again you show your naivity. The Army were deployed under the MACP role. (Military Aid to the Civil Police). Yes the horse has bolted and locking the stable door is a bit too late! What they were doing though is acting as the police on the streets whilst freeing up police time investigate and do what the police need to do. It doesn't matter who shoots these people, but they need to be shot.

SG

 

Im not naive and please stop suggesting so. I don't feel the need to insult you in this discussion.

I asked the question what part of our defence budget is actually spent in defence and people stated that the army were used to defend against terrorism after Manchester.

No they werent they were used to do the polices jobs. So this part of the defence budget wasnt spent on defence.

If we spent less money on starting wars we might not of had to cut the police budget quite so much and we may be less worried about people blowing us up

With nuclear war heads.

[Stumpy Grinder]

No. I understand what your saying but i disagree. People arent nukeing all the countries without nukes are they. Australia for example. Much smaller than us and no need for a deterrent.

Lets say for example that the powers that be in north korea decide to chuck a nuke in our direction. Do you think it would be right for us to chuck one back. Killing millions of innocent people because one nutter was power crazed?

YES it would! However, the fact that we could (and would) do so is also the fact that it wouldn't happen in the first place! Nuclear weapons have been used before and undoubtedly will be again. The human race is on a mission to self-destruct, but how it does it is yet to be determined.

SG

[matelot]

Im not naive and please stop suggesting so.

 

You are naive. You wanted me to post information on the Army's involvement in counter terrorism... You really think I should do that on a public forum?

[muttley9050]

You are naive. You wanted me to post information on the Army's involvement in counter terrorism... You really think I should do that on a public forum?

Trying not to swear here. You assume you know mire than others about everything.

I know what the army does i didnt insult or criticise. Just pointing out we like to blow up poor people and waste billions on useless, out of date, non independent weapons.

Try debating a point on a non personal attack level.

Edited June 4, 2017 by muttley9050

[matelot]

Trying not to swear here. You assume you know

 

If you don't want people to call you "naive" stop being naive.....

[matelot]

I know what the army does i didnt insult or criticise.

 

You don't know what the army does. You were saying it does nothing to protect us from terrorism.

 

Maybe you should put that spade down?

[muttley9050]

Trying not to swear here. You assume you know mire than others about everything.

I know what the army does i didnt insult or criticise. Just pointing out we like to blow up poor people and waste billions on useless, out of date, non independent weapons.

Try debating a point on a non personal attack level.

Im going to bed. I may join this discussion again when the quality of discussion increases.thus would mean that you were less involved.

Your a nasty nasty racist troll who is unable to have a conversation with someone he disagrees with without resorting to personal slurs and i will no longer have anything to do with you.

I will take this opportunity to apologise for lowering myself to your level.

Good night all im off to find the ignore button.

[muttley9050]

You don't know what the army does. You were saying it does nothing to protect us from terrorism.

 

Maybe you should put that spade down?

Please see my last post and lastly please dont mis quote me. If you want to quote what i have said then hit the quote button and quote me in context.

[trigger_andy]

You don't know what the army does. You were saying it does nothing to protect us from terrorism.

 

Maybe you should put that spade down?

 

 

You need help, you obviously have issues that need addressing.