The British Army, Be The Best.
- Thread starter DraftPickle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What do you mean 'technically'?Daystar Clarion said:
Considering your Head of State is Liz II, there's no technicality at all.
Well I'm not gonna come out with, "yeah, Britian owns your arses bitches!" I like to use tact.RhomCo said:
I'm Australian and thus born without tact or what any English person without a burberry fetish would call 'social graces'.Daystar Clarion said:
Terrorism is a method: insurgents may use terror as a means of coercion, but then so do bank robbers, pirates, school bullies and professional armies. It wouldn't be correct to refer to them simply as terrorists. Terrorists are distinct from insurgents in methodology, objectives and purpose, even though there is a degree of overlap.LimaBravo said:God bless the British army & Scottish sergeants (Check the figures its awesome) ;D.
DOing better than everyone else with less kit cause we can
Insurgentmaninahat said:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Thats a terrorist. If your fighting using violent action against a cause and you cant manifest a military or governmental force to back that cause your a terrorist.
terrorist
:the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
An example would be the War of American Independence. By the modern meaning of the term, the American forces was an insurgency, however they did not use any terror tactics against civilians. Despite being insurgents (not that they were called this at the time), the Americans were clearly not terrorists. Insurgent is a neutral term in this situation.
First, because it's too hard to format quote pyramids:
Simo Hahya was shot in the face, and it did some pretty hefty damage, but it was repairable. Pic of him after the wound, spolierd for the squeemish:
He lived until 2002.
Secondly, for Danny OCean and Marine Mike:
Yeah, we still use anti-vehicle rifles. They're designated "anti-materiel" rifles in US parlance, and range from .50 BMG up to 25mm.
Pics of some systems:
Anzio Ironworks 20mm takedown rifle.
Barrett XM109 25mm Payload Rifle.
Simo Hahya was shot in the face, and it did some pretty hefty damage, but it was repairable. Pic of him after the wound, spolierd for the squeemish:
Secondly, for Danny OCean and Marine Mike:
Yeah, we still use anti-vehicle rifles. They're designated "anti-materiel" rifles in US parlance, and range from .50 BMG up to 25mm.
Pics of some systems:
Anzio Ironworks 20mm takedown rifle.
Barrett XM109 25mm Payload Rifle.
Now you know what to do if your facing against British snipers. Pretend you're dead and they'll just leave you alone.DraftPickle said:
Still, I think it's bad form to be bragging about killing people. Even if it was an exceptional feat.
Oh yeah, no doubts about it, but I still think it's alil sick though to have a record for it.SlowShootinPete said:
hate to break this to you, but its war, people die. kill or be killed.thePyro_13 said:Now you know what to do if your facing against British snipers. Pretend you're dead and they'll just leave you alone.DraftPickle said:
Still, I think it's bad form to be bragging about killing people. Even if it was an exceptional feat.
Here is the definition of terrorist which you had provided:LimaBravo said:
This definition is so vague it can cover any circumstance in which terror is used to achieve a set task. This can include "Shock and Awe" tactics, which specifically uses a display of overwhelming force to surprise, confuse, and break the will of an enemy. It is often an objective of an army to demoralise an enemy force enough to cause a rout.
Despite utilising terror as a tactic, soldiers are not typically referred to as terrorists. Neither are pirates, bank robbers or insurgents.
I was referring to the AWI (as most would assume). Before 1775, the early troubles was between the British regulars and the Colonial militia and partisans. They did not constitute an official belligerent organisation, at least until the Continental Congress made it so in 1775. In the early stages the Colonials were rebels and not an official army. Because they did not count as a belligerent at this point, they were insurgents. They were certainly not terrorists however.
You already did that with your definitions. Our disagreement comes from whether the Taliban in Afghanistan are terrorists or insurgents. You wanted another analogy, then let me make the case for the Taliban being insurgents:
They are rebelling against the established government in their own country. They are not recognised as a regular force. Their objective is to disrupt and dispose of their current government. They are sepcifically referred to as insurgents as opposed to terrorists in the Afghan conflict. As is typical amoung insurgencies, they use terror tactics.
I'll compare them to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. It has less specific objectives; generally, they are aiming to antagonise the efforts of American and Western powers, as well as a number of Eastern and local governments which do not act in accordance with their extremist Islamic beliefs and doctrines. Their efforts are not concentrated on a single purpose in a single local area (like an insurgency), but many objectives on a global scale. Al Qaeda exhibit both global and domestic terrorism.
I'll bring up Hamas too. Hamas is not an insurgency because it is the official government of Palestine. They are inconsistently referred to as terrorists, depending on the country. They use terror tactics against the civilians of a foreign country, yet they are the legitimate leaders of Palestine.
I'm not sure if you'll get this because you have been banned. I'll post anyway for posterity.
