Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Armed Assault Info Forums _ OT Discussions _ Political Discussion Thread

Posted by: Wittmann Nov 5 2006, 12:20

In this thread members can discuss any interesting political matters that are going on, both local and international.


Please ignore if easily offended!


Also keep in mind that posts from a staff member of our website do not represent the whole site. They are posting their personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to!

Posted by: LooseKannon Nov 12 2006, 03:09

I get a email every couple of weeks from the defence mag Janes with some new articles about military hardware. I was looking through recently and what caught my eye was

QUOTE
Zhuk-MAE radar prototypes gear up for first flight
Phazotron-NIIR in Moscow is completing assembly of two prototypes of the Zhuk-MAE active electronically scanned AESA radar, destined for the MiG-35 fighters being tendered by Russia for India's Multirole Combat Aircraft (MRCA) requirement for 126 fighters. First flight of an aircraft with the experimental Zhuk-MAE radar was required by RSK MiG during the first half of November in order to demonstrate this milestone at the Aero India 2007 exhibition in Bangalore, in February 2007


I also heard somewhere that india will be buying some http://www.aero.tku.edu.tw/high/aerohistory/su47.jpg fighter planes. Interesting stuff, it looks like India is definately getting up there with their air forces.

Cheers

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 12 2006, 03:11

QUOTE(LooseKannon @ Nov 12 2006, 02:09) *

I get a email every couple of weeks from the defence mag Janes with some new articles about military hardware. I was looking through recently and what caught my eye was
I also heard somewhere that india will be buying some http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/s37.htm fighter planes. Interesting stuff, it looks like India is definately getting up there with their air forces.

Cheers


now they have the economy to sustain a high tech military i guess they thought "why not". maybe they will soon join the war against terror? hopefully it wont further complicate things with Pakistan by purchasing these jets.

Posted by: LooseKannon Nov 12 2006, 03:13

Hmm.. Good point there Biggles. I don't think they will be joining the war of terror anytime soon, I dont think it's going to last long enough for them to join in time? Not so sure about Pakistan, I'll keep my eyes peeled for any info

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 13 2006, 01:16

ive always wondered, becuse im an idiot when it comes to guns, what the black boxes on the side of m4's do?

Posted by: Serial Killer Nov 13 2006, 07:48

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Nov 13 2006, 02:16) *

ive always wondered, becuse im an idiot when it comes to guns, what the black boxes on the side of m4's do?


If you mean the box close to the barrel, I think it's for laser aim.

King Homer should know it, as he knows everything about weapons tongue.gif

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 13 2006, 16:09

Per chance would you mean this black box?
IPB Image

Its a AN/PEQ laser/flashlight box. Also its where airsofters store their batteries.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 13 2006, 21:10

Well some people will allready know that this exists...

The 417 series looks set to dominate the Market.

HK417

IPB Image

http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_HK417_01.jpg
http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_HK417_02.jpg
http://www.militech.sownet.pl/inne/_HK417_04.jpg

http://www.defensereview.com/stories/hk/HK417ProductSheet%2010-20-05_rev-1.pdf

QUOTE
Basic HK417 Facts/Info (as claimed by Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc.):

According to the fact sheet, the HK 417 will be available with 12, 16, and 20-inch cold-hammer-forged, chrome-lined barrels, and all barrels will feature a 1:11-inch twist rate. All barrels will be threaded for silencers/sound suppressors, flash hiders (flash suppressors) and muzzle compensators. HK Defense Inc. claims that barrel life will "easily exceed 15,000-20,000 rounds with little or no accuracy degredation."

The HK417 will take 20-round G3-style lightweight aluminum and steel box mags with dual-reinforced feed lips. The weapon also features a 4-sided free-floating rail system/forend rail tube (a.k.a. "quad rail" system) wich whill accept the same quick-detachable HK AG-416 underbarrel-mounted 40mm (40x46mm) GLM (Grenade Launcher Module).

The HK417 fact sheet states that during a desert firing test, an HK417 prototype (2nd design stage) fired more than 15,000 rounds of assorted 7.62x51mm/.308 Win. ammo, including M118LR, M80 ball, M993 AP and a variety of commercial ammo with bullet weights ranging from 125 grains to over 175 grains "without a single parts failure or stoppage. The document also claims that during an accuracy test, an HK417 carbine in "assaulter" configuration (12" barrel) averaged 1.3 MOA between four shooters firing multiple 5-shot groups at ranges between 100-500 yards.



HK416

http://www.defensereview.com/hksecret9/HK416_3.jpg
http://www.defensereview.com/hksecret9/HK416_2.jpg
http://www.defensereview.com/hksecret9/HK416_1.jpg

QUOTE
The HK416 System

Inspired by the resounding success of the mid-life improvement program of the British SA80 (L85/L86) Weapons System, Heckler & Koch began a development program to create the HK416 Enhanced Carbine. Working with current users from around the globe, HK set out to produce an Enhanced Carbine that would outperform competing 5.56mm carbines and provide the high degree of performance required by the user community, particularly those within the special operations arena who demand more and expect no compromise when lives are at stake.

High-speed video assessment and extensive live-fire testing in extreme operational environments such as the U.S. Army Desert Proving Ground in Yuma, Arizona revealed multiple areas for improvement of the 5.56 mm carbine. Improvements were made to the internal operating system and miscellaneous component parts to improve reliability in best and worse case scenarios, with all types of ammunition, with all barrel lengths and with and without sound suppressors attached.

An innovative free-floating 4-quadrant rail system designed by HK allows all current standard accessories and sights to be fitted to the HK416 and can be removed without tools. The HK-proprietary gas system does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon’s interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, increases the reliability of the weapon and extends the interval between stoppages.

To improve reliability, service life, and operator safety during obstructed bore occurrences or after extreme extended firing sessions, HK has produced its famous cold hammer forged barrel for the HK416 in various lengths to include 10, 14.5, 16.5, and 20 inches.

The highest quality steel is used in this unique manufacturing process producing a barrel that provides superior accuracy for greater than 20,000 rounds with minimal degradation of accuracy and muzzle velocity.
In addition to the improvements in the baseline weapon, HK has produced a high reliability magazine and a proprietary buffer to improve functional reliability.

An add-on single shot 40 x 46mm AG416 enhanced grenade launcher module can be quickly attached to the rail system of all models without tools.
Heckler & Koch has applied its proven and fielded Safety Blank Firing Attachment and Live Round Excluder Magazine technology to the HK416 Carbine, eliminating the possibility of live rounds being loaded into and fired through a standard issue weapon outfitted for blank firing only.

A “drop-in” HK416 upper receiver module and a complete carbine are both
being offered with deliveries beginning in February 2005. The full potential of the 5.56mm carbine has now been realized with the introduction of the HK416.

Unique Features:

• Short-stroke piston gas system--
--Improved reliability
--100% function
--No fouling directed into weapon
--Less cleaning
--User removable/exchangeable components
--Insensitive to barrel length or ammunition changes

• Improved buffer system

• Improved steel magazine:
--Improved feeding reliability, durability, service life

• Refined barrel/bolt locking recesses/lugs:
--Improved function

• Improved extractor and spring, buffer:
--Improved function

• Enhanced AG-C add-on 40mm grenade launcher
• HK cold-hammer forged barrel
--Extended service life
--Improved accuracy and user safety


• HK free-floating modular rail system



Additional ongoing work:



• Improved surface finish, ambidextrous controls
• Safety Blank Firing Adapter and live round excluder magazine
• Integrated reflex sight with nested IR laser aimer and illuminator"


Regards H_H

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 14 2006, 12:26

QUOTE(Elliot Carver @ Nov 13 2006, 15:09) *

Per chance would you mean this black box?


Its a AN/PEQ laser/flashlight box. Also its where airsofters store their batteries.


aHH TY, that explains alot.

Posted by: King Homer Nov 14 2006, 16:06

Fore more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 18 2006, 12:16

Can someone shed some light on whats happening about the new GMGs that the british are aquiring for e-WMIKs?

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 18 2006, 17:24

not sure specificcly, but i kno royal marine units have mounted a new type of grenade launcher on there WMIK's to "pack the punch" when armor isnt avalilable.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 18 2006, 18:06

thats probabbly the GMG then...

Posted by: Serial Killer Nov 22 2006, 16:45

Do US Marines have their own winter camouflage scheme of the MARPAT? Or do they use plain white uniform like others?

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 22 2006, 19:42

not sure at the moment but check this out

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200426161350

maybe this is in service?

Posted by: Wittmann Nov 26 2006, 08:05

Well apparently ACU does have a purpose, hiding from the wife:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/13711371/DSCF0001.jpg


Posted by: LooseKannon Nov 26 2006, 09:32

Haha, thats awesome smile.gif

I seriously did not see him untill I looked closer wink.gif

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 26 2006, 13:12

QUOTE(Wittmann @ Nov 26 2006, 07:05) *

Well apparently ACU does have a purpose, hiding from the wife:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/13711371/DSCF0001.jpg


haha thats awsome

all the us need to do now is paint all of iraq the same couler as that sofa.

Posted by: da rat Nov 26 2006, 14:00

Lmao, good one laugh.gif
*Reforms overblown opinions about ACU* tongue.gif

Posted by: Red Square Monkey Dec 2 2006, 00:28

Works great for that sofa tongue.gif, still haven't seen a good pic in the desert though.

Posted by: JdB Dec 12 2006, 04:04

QUOTE(Red Square Monkey @ Dec 2 2006, 00:28) *

Works great for that sofa tongue.gif, still haven't seen a good pic in the desert though.


That's probably because no one is stupid enough to hang around in the desert in ACU. "One camo fits all", hardly, more like "Better a few dozen KIA's a month then a few billion $ on decent clothing for everyone".

Posted by: D@V£ Jan 15 2007, 19:50

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/media_archive/jan-11-2007_a.html

I want one! ohno-smiley.gif

Posted by: Russki Jan 30 2007, 11:48

Looks too big... How would you move in that damn thing?
I really like the desighn of the BMP3

Posted by: King Homer Jan 31 2007, 15:29

In which way you connect this with the BMP3?

Posted by: Russki Feb 5 2007, 18:41

sweatingbullets.gif
No way at all, I just wanted to share my opinion tongue.gif

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 12 2007, 18:17

Does anybody know the man-stopping effect of a .357 Sig compared to an .357 Magnum ?
(I'm talking about the same type of bullet tongue.gif)

Posted by: King Homer Feb 12 2007, 20:06

Well I guess the size of the cartridge explains a lot
IPB Image
.357 Magnum (9x33 mm)

IPB Image
.357 SIG (9x22 mm)

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 12 2007, 20:16

It does, thought the SIG one had a larger powder compartiment and a larger bullet

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 13 2007, 00:52

AFAIK the sig is a good option for people who want more than a 9x19 but don't like the recoil that comes with a .40S&W allthough that said the sig has sone considerable recoil. Porting the barrel helps...

Posted by: King Homer Feb 13 2007, 14:38

Because you asked for the man-stopping-power:

The bullet energy of the .357 Mag ranges from 680 to 1780 Joule and compared with the maximum 770 Joules of the SIG variant I guess the Magnum is more effective. Furthermore it depends on the type of bullet...
FMJ, JSP, JHP, JFP, JRN, LHP, LRN, LSW or LWC are just a small amount of available ones...

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 13 2007, 16:07

The magnum a semi rimmed?

Posted by: King Homer Feb 13 2007, 21:37

What do you refer to?

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 13 2007, 22:27

The bottom of the case.

Posted by: King Homer Feb 14 2007, 06:58

Yeah I know that but in what connection?


Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 14 2007, 12:23

The sig is a rimless cartridge AFAIK and the magnum is a semi rimmed, so the sig in theory has a better chance of being implemented to weapons, not to mention the size of it compared to the magnum, what i'm getting at is the magnum is pretty much a revolver cartridge...

Posted by: King Homer Feb 14 2007, 23:02

That for sure. I just answered the question of Lt. Earth Apple.
I still would prefer the good ol' .45.

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 14 2007, 23:24

Same here

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Feb 15 2007, 01:13

The british army are colaberating with a shoe maker to make the perfect shoe! does that sound like a good idea too you?

http://www.ukgear.com/index.php?kw={keyword}&fl=786

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 15 2007, 17:08

QUOTE(King Homer @ Feb 13 2007, 14:38) *

Because you asked for the man-stopping-power:

The bullet energy of the .357 Mag ranges from 680 to 1780 Joule and compared with the maximum 770 Joules of the SIG variant I guess the Magnum is more effective. Furthermore it depends on the type of bullet...
FMJ, JSP, JHP, JFP, JRN, LHP, LRN, LSW or LWC are just a small amount of available ones...

I knew about the different typesof bullets, I just thought about the firingpower independent of the bullet wink.gif
Stupidly, I thought the .357 was a compact form of the .357 Magnum for Pistols mf_hide.gif

Thank you for all informations wink.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 15 2007, 23:14

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Feb 15 2007, 00:13) *

The british army are colaberating with a shoe maker to make the perfect shoe! does that sound like a good idea too you?

http://www.ukgear.com/index.php?kw={keyword}&fl=786


There was an article in C&S not too long ago about it, and from what I recall the model who was testing them said that they were great. She did all manner of things with em, hiking seaside etc..

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 23 2007, 11:17

Magpul Masada

IPB Image
STANAG Magwell
IPB Image
AK74 Magwell

http://demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/Magpul-Masada/
http://www.magpul.com/Masada_inside.pdf

What do you think of this? Better than the SCAR?

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 23 2007, 11:26

I think of it like of the most assault rifles:
You could even kill somebody with an old m16 or a stg44, maybe on paper it makes a difference, but in a fight... hm

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 23 2007, 11:37

To me it looks less bulky than the SCAR and the stock is better too IMHO

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 23 2007, 11:42

What is that for an supressor in the second picture ?
It's Huge !

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 23 2007, 12:03

Its a noveske* flash hider not a supressor laugh.gif its a good idea.

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 23 2007, 12:05

I wanted to say with supressor "the thing on the barrel"

Posted by: King Homer Feb 23 2007, 14:24

Well I can't judge it from here how effective it is in combat etc. and I guess I'll never do it anyways but all I can say is good looking weapon with stupid name.

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 23 2007, 14:37

any additional infos to this weapon? never heard of it.

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 23 2007, 14:54

Its a new weapon that was unveiled at shot show 07, what sort of info you want?

http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=212820

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 23 2007, 16:02

manufacturer, country of origin...such things...

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 23 2007, 16:35

Manu' - Magupl
Country - USA
Calibre - 5.56x45mm

Can accept ak74 magazines in the one variant
uses a short stroke piston simmilar to the AR18/G36
Available for civ purchase i think

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 23 2007, 20:18

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Feb 23 2007, 16:35) *

Manu' - Magupl
Country - USA
Calibre - 5.56x45mm

Can accept ak74 magazines in the one variant
uses a short stroke piston simmilar to the AR18/G36
Available for civ purchase i think

for sure not in germany sad.gif

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 24 2007, 01:06

Why not ?semi-automatic rifles are relatively easy to get here

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 25 2007, 00:55

QUOTE(Lt. Earth Apple @ Feb 24 2007, 01:06) *

Why not ?semi-automatic rifles are relatively easy to get here

new edition of fire arms law? semi automatic rifles are restricted due to the fact that the concerning licence is very hard to get. of course, their is no problem if you have your waffenbesitzkarte and your großen waffenschein, but until this point it´s a long way.

good find about this weapon anyway.

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 25 2007, 01:33

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Feb 25 2007, 00:55) *

new edition of fire arms law? semi automatic rifles are restricted due to the fact that the concerning licence is very hard to get. of course, their is no problem if you have your waffenbesitzkarte and your großen waffenschein, but until this point it´s a long way.

good find about this weapon anyway.

True, but compaired to Great Britain wink.gif
It's a long but doable way

Posted by: D@V£ Feb 25 2007, 15:37

I know I've been saying this a lot recently, but really http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6394387.stm.

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 25 2007, 17:25

Well that sums up the nanny state we live in, when I was choosing what options i had the AR15 crossed my mind then i thought whats the point if it has to be a straight pull so i'm gonna settle for something like a K98K...

Posted by: Elliot Carver Feb 27 2007, 01:27

D@V£ makes a good point folks and we shouldnt miss it - this is what is going to force us into war with Iran. Up untill then I was all against invading Iran. They are their own country and the US is only after oil to power their military to take over the world when the rest of us run out of resorces in 2040(oil)/60(gas).
But now that Iran has the capability of launching spaced based weapon platforms to put a nuke on a target worldwide...changes things slightly. Iran is a good place - its leadership is whats wrong. Some despot ruler gets into power over this twit they have atm and we wake up to nuked westen city on bbc news 24.

btw I always wondered what a SIG and a SCAR would look like blended...with that ak74 i now know ^^ all it needs now is a boxmag, a bipod and a red dot scope and u got yourself the mother of all CQB weapons mwhahaha

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 27 2007, 13:08

QUOTE(Elliot Carver @ Feb 27 2007, 01:27) *

D@V£ makes a good point folks and we shouldnt miss it - this is what is going to force us into war with Iran. Up untill then I was all against invading Iran. They are their own country and the US is only after oil to power their military to take over the world when the rest of us run out of resorces in 2040(oil)/60(gas).
But now that Iran has the capability of launching spaced based weapon platforms to put a nuke on a target worldwide...changes things slightly. Iran is a good place - its leadership is whats wrong. Some despot ruler gets into power over this twit they have atm and we wake up to nuked westen city on bbc news 24.


a lot of countries can launch them, but they don't.
But I can't denie that Bush (or the USA at all ?) cannot permit to leave the misssucces of war in Iraq stand allone, without any succes.
Bush needs a succes somewhere else (and the Oil tongue.gif )
Even France, (England and Germany should have protested) but that's something else stupid.gif

Posted by: Elliot Carver Feb 27 2007, 13:51

Ok here is a deeper question...
The Lt here says Bush cant leave iraq without some success. Afghanistan was it a success and would invading Iran bring stability to Iraq?

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 27 2007, 15:18

My personal Opinion will stay "no !"
The majority of people I know think it was not a succes, you can't fight Terroisme like that (but get oil wink.gif )
Maybe I'm totaly wrong, but that's what I and most people see.

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 27 2007, 21:43

it would hardly bring any success. to reduce the issue to combat action, they invaded iraq with success and pushed out the taliban regime. what do we learn through this efforts? a war can be won, but the mentality of the people and the reasons for this mentality cannot be defeated only with military force. even if the entire nato would invade the whole middle east with millions of troops, there still would be the idea behind the mentality which makes men to play suicide bomber.
once it worked in germany, that is the reason why the anglo-american part of the alliance thinks it must work today. nothing more.

Posted by: D@V£ Feb 27 2007, 22:25

I'm sorry, I think you missed the point Carver, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that Iran launching a missile into orbit wasn't expected...

...but then again, neither was the Wii being considered a true form of exercise...

...or the norweigen government creating a nuclear proof farm...

...I suppose now is a bad time to bring http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm up...

(if you already know about this, feel free not to express your surprise Malajn.gif )


I'd like to add that I in no way advocate an invasion of Iran. Iraq was justifiable even without the WMDs, no ones liked Saddam and some of the stuff he did could never be justified. This is not the case with Iran.
IPB Image

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 28 2007, 06:36

[quote name='D@V£' post='10240' date='Feb 27 2007, 22:25']
I'm sorry, I think you missed the point Carver, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that Iran launching a missile into orbit wasn't expected...

...but then again, neither was the Wii being considered a true form of exercise...

...or the norweigen government creating a nuclear proof farm...

...I suppose now is a bad time to bring http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm up...

(if you already know about this, feel free not to express your surprise Malajn.gif )
I'd like to add that I in no way advocate an invasion of Iran. Iraq was justifiable even without the WMDs, no ones liked Saddam and some of the stuff he did could never be justified. This is not the case with Iran.


blink.gif ?! is this true?

Posted by: D@V£ Feb 28 2007, 19:02

Well, have you known the BBC to publish misinformation?

Posted by: pMASTER Feb 28 2007, 19:30

zombies?! maybe that article is an extraction from farmland herald?

Posted by: Helping Hand Feb 28 2007, 19:40

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Feb 28 2007, 18:02) *
Well, have you known the BBC to publish misinformation?


Yes...

But article be fake.

Posted by: da rat Feb 28 2007, 19:44

lol, I thought it was real at first - scary shit! But yeah, I think it's fake too. Just look at the URL tiredsmiley.gif

Posted by: Elliot Carver Feb 28 2007, 20:50

better still look at the date tongue.gif i cant belive u all missed that Copy of rolleyes.gif problem is you wouldnt put it past most governments not to be true which speaks loads about what actually could be out there....

The Wii is a form of exercise god dammit! lols
I can see what you mean D@V£. The unexpectedness of the development took the unknowing by surprise but notably it did not create the uproar and backlash that i was expecting. That would tell me that the coalition already knew about it and passed it off as a non threat. You could draw a conclusion from thus that they know Iran is developing a nuke. Iran is playing us 'the public' - the voting public - against our nations. Knowing that we wont go along with another invasion Iran is playing the western worlds bluff. fair oversight?

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Feb 28 2007, 20:51

Nah, it's not, it's not .... Get ready for anarchy .... Yeeeehaaa !


(no, I'm kidding) sweatingbullets.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Mar 4 2007, 02:05

QUOTE(da rat @ Feb 28 2007, 20:44) *
lol, I thought it was real at first - scary shit! But yeah, I think it's fake too. Just look at the URL tiredsmiley.gif


Especially the top "Printable version" one... naughty.gif

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Mar 8 2007, 21:19

hehe, April fool, hence the date.

Posted by: Deadeye Mar 13 2007, 19:17

Dave posted it ages ago. tongue.gif REPOST still funny

Posted by: Wittmann Mar 14 2007, 15:52

Australia is buying 24 "SuperHornets' to cover our capability gap when the F111s are retired and the now later than expected introduction of the F35, also meaning less FA18A Hornets will have to undergo the HUG program. This is also a reaction to Indonesia and Malaysia's appropriation of SU30's and Singapore's acquisition of advanced F15 fighters.

In an interesting move too, Singapore has purchased 66 Leopard 2A4 tanks for its army,they will replace their AMX13s and Centurion upgrades. Singapore is a small island nation so their major military hardware is actually based offshore, their armour is currently located in Taiwan and Brunei.

The Australian DMO is also looking at acquiring from the Dutch 18 surplus PzH 2000 SPA's in exchange for 350 Bushmaster IMVs, of which the Dutch have purchased 25 in use in Afghanistan, and appear to be pleased with them.

The Dutch have also been receiving vehicles from the Canadians in exchange for allowing the Canadians usage of Dutch CH47s in Afghanistan. It is believed pensioners in London may coble together funds for a Spitfire to be exchanged for Tulip bulbs tongue.gif

The UK is opting for more C17s after the A400m has been delayed. The RAAF is now operating its first C17s from Amberley air force base.


Posted by: da rat Mar 14 2007, 17:37

Oooh! A comedian! tongue.gif lol

Posted by: Marxist Mar 18 2007, 20:45

i think that this weapon will be widely used for ssome upcoming decades


Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Mar 18 2007, 22:30

No ? Really ?
An what is it ?
( tongue.gif )
The AK will stay for a long time a a good an cheap built weapon.
If I had to finance an army, I would buy AKs because of the price, and the "symbolisation" tongue.gif

Posted by: da rat Mar 18 2007, 22:37

I think that water will be used to hydrate soldiers for years to come

Posted by: Helping Hand Mar 19 2007, 00:34

I thought this was a serious topic blink.gif Might as well be in OT2 atm...

Posted by: Wittmann Mar 19 2007, 03:01

It is serious so back on topic...

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Mar 20 2007, 00:24

hey guys. this is to anyone who knows anything about german panzers in ww2. My dads building a Tiger from scratch 1/6 scale (the same as dragon figures, which will make up the crew). For his birthday im going to get him some stuff to put on it. they What type of things did put on tigers in terms of equipment? (canteens, weapons etc..), so i can buy it in dragon to put on the finished tank. I read they liked to use parachutist helmits is that true?

Posted by: Helping Hand Mar 20 2007, 08:25

I got a great big referance book if anything is needed from it. If it can wait till tonight I'll do some scans of it for you thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Wittmann Mar 20 2007, 12:43

Wheres Homer? I mean I could list a few things but Id rather consult the resident panzer encyclopedia smile.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Mar 20 2007, 12:55

Well, dunno about that parachutist's helmet thingy. They actually had padded berets, which were fairly good AFAIK, like their black overall uniforms, which pretty much, as with German uniforms in general, doubled as parade uniforms. I suppose that all crewmembers had a pistol (Walther P38) and an MP40 or 2 was issued per tank.

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/tiger-tank.htm site seems to have few nice photos... spare tracks are pretty much "standard issue", and some wires and stuff to keep the thing going... few seem to have an AA mount MG42 in the commander's cupola, few have branches and such for camo and one seems to have water bottles or helmets hanging on the side of the turret... but generally rather clean. unsure.gif

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Mar 20 2007, 22:41

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Mar 20 2007, 07:25) *
I got a great big referance book if anything is needed from it. If it can wait till tonight I'll do some scans of it for you thumbsup.gif


that would be great, cheers for that site scorp. I guess Homer will be able to suggest a few things when hes around.

Posted by: pMASTER Mar 21 2007, 17:15

i have a short question...is there any difference between the .45 acp round and the .45 auto? for sure, acp is an abbreviation for automatic colt pistol so it could be the same which i think is the case, but sometimes i see both acronyms used at one time, apparently to differentiate between two different pistol calibers.

Posted by: Jimboob May 1 2007, 20:37

Found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N9rIlfVzfI&mode=related&search= pretty interesting.

Posted by: Helping Hand May 1 2007, 20:48

Interesting. But in the right hands an AK can be quite accurate up to ~300 yds

Posted by: Wittmann Jun 22 2007, 07:36

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6228342.stm

Yeah, I can see that actually...'colourful language' tongue.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Jun 22 2007, 09:05

Being threatened by a load of Aussies with AUGs and Minimis would be daunting to say the least. After all aren't the Australians some of the worlds bravest soldiers?

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Jun 25 2007, 23:14

hahaha! i can just imagine a broken australian voice on a speaker system , "F*** Off". tongue.gif

Royal Navy, pfffftt what do you expect. Will never get 15 paras surrendering to the Iranians.

Posted by: D@V£ Jun 25 2007, 23:27

We need to hire out the australian navy then! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Wittmann Jun 26 2007, 05:29

Technically it already belongs to the Queen...

Posted by: D@V£ Jun 26 2007, 16:18

Hurrah! Technicalities!

Posted by: Elliot Carver Jun 27 2007, 00:36

heh heh heh proves the british have become a bunch of small furry animals that go 'meow'. Up until the 80's the forces were the force to be recconed with. We had Phantoms, Lightnings and V Bombers. We had big carriers like Ark Royal. Our troops were all over the world peace keeping. Our tanks were the best. We were the best. Now our forces are nothing! killed with budget cuts and red tape. We have the eurofighter without a cannon becuase we cant afford it. Were only getting 1 replacement aircraft carrier becuase we cant afford the planned three. Weve left our ships sitting ducks becuase we cant afford the air defences like the Sea Harrier. Our seakings are being kept on for another 10 years becuase we cant afford to replace them. We cant even defend ourselves from kidnappers and when we do get caught we spill the information like traitors and cry to our media. RIP British Armed Forces.

Posted by: Wittmann Jun 27 2007, 07:35

Dont worry! The ADF, NZDF and Royal Canadian forces will defend you! smile.gif

Posted by: Rellikki Jul 22 2007, 19:19

Well, I've tried everywhere else so I thought I'd ask here too. Anyone know the name of those chestrigs that OPFOR wear in America's Army?
Here's some pics:
http://www.americasarmy.com/images/media/screenshots/800x600/sfblizzrd5.jpg
http://www.americasarmy.com/images/media/screenshots/800x600/border4.jpg
http://www.americasarmy.com/images/media/screenshots/800x600/sfwtreat5.jpg

Posted by: Helping Hand Jul 22 2007, 21:02

http://www.diamondbacktactical.com/BattleLab-AK47-Low-Vis-Rack-LV6-P798C90.aspx

I showed you on msn but this makes me look good tongue.gif

Posted by: Rellikki Jul 24 2007, 17:55

Excellent, excellent. Now when I know its name, I can start my world domination attempts. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Aug 3 2007, 15:25

Got a question:
I want to buy an Airsoft, but there are some problems.
The first one is the fact I'm living in Germany and not anymore in Switzerland where AEGs >0.5 Joules are allowed, and combined with the problem I'm only 16, it results it's not possible to own legaly any good and powerfull AEGs (only Semi-AEGs, and even there, officialy I'm to young for them)

So AEG's <0.5 are allowed when you are older than 14, but the most time, it's cheap crap, so I wanted to know your opinion about this gun and the maker



AS-24 SCAR L
Details:
Caliber: 6 mm BB
System: AEG - Automatic Electric Gun
Material: ABS and metal parts
Mag: ca. 300 rounds.
Length: ca. 610 mm / 775mm
Weight: ca. 3.000 g
Scale: 1:1
Range: ca. 50 m
Energy: ca. 0,45 Joule (+- 0,03)
Gearbox: Metall Version 2

Is it worth the 140 € ?

Thanks for you opinion wink.gif

PS: Not sure if it's the right thread

I guess I found out they're sold in germany by AS24, and in the UK they are "imported" by JLS or Jing Gong

Posted by: Blackscorpion Aug 3 2007, 22:59

Heh, more maybe we need a dedicated AS thread... or do we have one? Atleast I recall us chatting about it in the chat thread.

Well, from what I've read, the older JG (assuming it IS of JG manufacture) stuff is shite, the newest is as good as Tokyo Marui or better, as they usually also copy theirs. Specs seem to be "the usual", although the muzzle velocity/energy is a bit surprising, especially given the distance they state. Check something like Arnies airsoft for reviews, if they have some. Your call...

Woah. Never noticed how much the FN SCAR lower receiver bears resemblence to M16.

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Aug 3 2007, 23:27

Yeah, now it's important for me to find out if they are sold as AS24 in Germany, but I think it's right.
I'm now waiting for an answer of the shop

Posted by: Helping Hand Aug 4 2007, 12:04

Ask Carver he's the Airsoft Guru and I guess we need a dedicated airsoft thread.

Posted by: Rellikki Sep 2 2007, 17:53

Another equipment question from me... Anyone know which vest are the Resistance in Operation Flashpoint wearing? I only have one picture of it, here:

http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwantyouun7.jpg
Picture taken by BIS...

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 4 2007, 23:57

QUOTE(Rellikki @ Sep 2 2007, 18:53) *
Another equipment question from me... Anyone know which vest are the Resistance in Operation Flashpoint wearing? I only have one picture of it, here:

http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwantyouun7.jpg
Picture taken by BIS...

Difficult to determine...The angle is not good. A front view picture showing the configuration of the pockets would be better in my humble opinion.

Posted by: Rellikki Sep 6 2007, 21:55

That's the only picture I've got. sad.gif If this helps anyhow, the campaigns were based on 1983-1985, so the vest must have been made somewhere around then. The vest was also used by the US crewmen and blackops in the game.

Posted by: JdB Sep 6 2007, 22:11

QUOTE(Rellikki @ Sep 6 2007, 22:55) *
That's the only picture I've got. sad.gif If this helps anyhow, the campaigns were based on 1983-1985, so the vest must have been made somewhere around then. The vest was also used by the US crewmen and blackops in the game.


The camo is the Czech Warsaw pact camo used during the 1950's and 1960's called Ameoba. I don't suspect BIS used a vest from that same period in time, as their accuracy in regards to realism is nothing like the word would suggest, accurate.

I'll take a look in my books on Warsaw Pact armies, but I fear this vest might well have come from any place in the world, US, Malasia, UK or any country in between.

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 6 2007, 23:07

Err...If you talk about the picture above I'd say that this is just common German Flecktarn pattern. However if you talk about the camo pattern used by resistance forces in OFP, this is a very interesting matter in my opinion. It really looks like the Czech Leibermuster, but the white dots in it make me think it is more likely the former Swiss pattern

Swiss/ Czech Camo compared with help of a BIS advertising



@Rellikki

Try militaryphotos.net for determination of the type of that vest. They're quite familiar there with all this gear.

Posted by: D@V£ Sep 7 2007, 10:39

And here was me thinking that they used Alpenflage, well, I'll be! ohmy.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Sep 7 2007, 16:32

Both. Most of them have the Swiss "Alpenflage" 6-colour pattern, but atleast crews and pilots wear Flecktarn.

Posted by: Rellikki Sep 8 2007, 06:07

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Sep 7 2007, 01:07) *
Err...If you talk about the picture above I'd say that this is just common German Flecktarn pattern. However if you talk about the camo pattern used by resistance forces in OFP, this is a very interesting matter in my opinion. It really looks like the Czech Leibermuster, but the white dots in it make me think it is more likely the former Swiss pattern

Swiss/ Czech Camo compared with help of a BIS advertising

http://img7.myimg.de/bubuc2202.jpg


Well, OFP's crappy texture quality might make it look like that, but at least in OFP:Elite it's clearly the Alpenflage camouflage.

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 8 2007, 09:08

And so is Alpenflage worn in Resistance as well.

By the way, why do you mention a X-BOX game, you renegade? tongue.gif


Posted by: D@V£ Sep 8 2007, 12:59

Says the man with a Battlefield 2 mod in signiture...

EDIT: I've just noticed, does anyone else find that picture odd, considering the Flecktarn guys ingame don't wear vests?

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 8 2007, 13:29

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Sep 8 2007, 13:59) *
Says the man with a Battlefield 2 mod in signiture...


IT IS AT LEAST NO CONSOLE GAME!

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Sep 8 2007, 13:59) *
I've just noticed, does anyone else find that picture odd, considering the Flecktarn guys ingame don't wear vests?


They do if I remember correctly, but not the kind of vest displayed on that image above. The Mg gunner for example is equipped with something in brown/grey whilst the guys wearing the Swiss clothes have something in black... ohmy.gif

Posted by: Rellikki Sep 8 2007, 14:08

Actually no. The Flecktarn guys don't wear vests, they only have a belt.

Posted by: Flyer Sep 12 2007, 11:46

Hi guys!

Did you hear about the new most powerful non-nuclear weapon? Russia tested yesterday their new toy. It should be four times more powerful than the http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB (Mother of all bombs).
And there seems to be another advantage. During the USA have to drop the MOAB with a modified http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130 (MC-130 Combat Talon), the russians can drop the "FOAB" (the bomb doesn't have a name, so it's called "Father OAB") from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-160 heavy supersonic bomber (or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TU-95). The bomb is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon, also called vacuum bomb. The bomb detonate a sprays arround the chemicals (like ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, decane, ... or solids (aluminium powder)). The chemicals build a could and mix with oxygen which detonates some time later (with a second charge, or otherwise (modern bombs only need one charge). This explosion causes a very strong shockwave (430 lbf/in²) and extrem temperature (4500 to 5400 °F / 2500 to 3000 °C).

You can read this article of reuters for further informations: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1155952320070911?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=69

Posted by: JdB Sep 12 2007, 12:32

What you're describing is pretty much a nuclear weapon minus the name tongue.gif

Posted by: Flyer Sep 12 2007, 13:20

And without nuclear fission and/or fussion. Also this weapons can not be used to generate an electromagnetic pulse when they detonate in high altitudes. And there is no initial brilliant flash of light produced by the nuclear detonation causes Flash blindness.

But yes, the shockwave and the high temperature are like a little nuclear explosion.

QUOTE(Reuters)
"Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon," Alexander Rukshin, Russian deputy armed forces chief of staff, told Russia's state ORT First Channel television.

Posted by: D@V£ Sep 12 2007, 13:52

This are still legal for personal ownership... right?

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 12 2007, 14:21

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0fe_1189579440

Posted by: Flyer Sep 12 2007, 16:27

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Sep 12 2007, 14:52) *
This are still legal for personal ownership... right?

Look out for it on ebay, they may have a DIY set.

@pMaster: Thx for the video.

If anyone find the video that was sent on the russian tv, please post the link in this thread.

Posted by: King Homer Sep 14 2007, 13:33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiT7M3YwyU4 one?

Posted by: pMASTER Sep 14 2007, 14:17

In an article that appeared today in the online section of daily "DIE WELT" a German military expert said he doubts the statements of the Russians about their new superbomb. He said he had found a lot of inconsistencies during the clip and even questioned if the explosion that was shown in the movie was triggered by a vacuum bomb.
Though he did not reveal any details about the whats and whys.

Source in German http://www.welt.de/politik/article1184197/Hat_Russland_doch_nicht_die_Superbombe.html

Posted by: Flyer Sep 14 2007, 14:35

QUOTE(King Homer @ Sep 14 2007, 14:33) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiT7M3YwyU4 one?


exactly! Thx for the video.

Finally there some videos smile.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 10 2007, 16:47

Discussion of world / local politics and world / local events

Seeing as the community chatter thread just turned into a politics thread I decided to save it from a sticky end and created this thread.

Remember Forum rules and guidelines apply. so no flaming or nonsense just valid discussions on politics and events.
For example the Iraq and Afghanistan "conflict" and the Asian Tsunami.

Please to use this thread instead of the Community Chatter thread thumbsup.gif

Regards Mark.


*EDIT - Edited poll*
Originally 5 voted yes and 3 voted no.

Posted by: JdB Nov 10 2007, 17:18

I voted yes, however there is nothing in the rules that prevents talking about politics in the Community Chatter thread, as "talking" equals chatter. The thread wasn't created to only post rubbish in it, bu for things that people don't want to make a separate thread for, or subjects that we wouldn't allow a separate thread for (like saying how your day was).

Also global politics is a strange term. As there will only be one politics thread, it will include global politics, but also local (besides petitions like the airsoft discussion). Just plain "Politics" would fit the content of the thread better, although it is likely that there will be more global issues discussed than local ones.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 10 2007, 17:28

I voted yes. This section was designed to allow for off-topic topics which aren't off topic enough to be consideredly truely off topic. I think we should use it more.

I also voted no because Mark keeps making polls with allow both answer to be choosen.

Posted by: Bence Nov 10 2007, 17:28

voted yes as long as we respect each country's political "atmosphere"! And I do think it's a good idea.

Posted by: Linker Split Nov 10 2007, 17:47

QUOTE(Bence @ Nov 10 2007, 17:28) *
voted yes as long as we respect each country's political "atmosphere"! And I do think it's a good idea.


agree, so that i votet yes thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 10 2007, 18:13

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Nov 10 2007, 16:28) *
I voted yes. This section was designed to allow for off-topic topics which aren't off topic enough to be consideredly truely off topic. I think we should use it more.

I also voted no because Mark keeps making polls with allow both answer to be choosen.


I've never done a poll here IIRC except this one... blink.gif

JdB feel free to edit the title to one you see that is more in keeping.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 10 2007, 18:50

somone has been meddeling with the poll results.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 10 2007, 19:38

Read the end of the first post. I said I edited it to remove multiple choice and it still says what you voted at the bottom of the post smile.gif

Posted by: Bence Nov 10 2007, 19:40

Okey, so Political topic ON! smile.gif

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 10 2007, 23:52

i said no at first, just becuase it will always end up in a flame war. But what the hell its worth a go, and if it dosnt work it dosnt work.

the beuty of the community chatter thread is that conversation quickly moves on. people get there view out, perhaps counter each others argument once then somone changes the subject completly. Dedicated threads often end up like the BI forums with 2 or 3 people just re-quoting each other for eternity before the inevatable , "why are you so fat" , "becuase every time i have your mum she gives me a cookie" malarky.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 10 2007, 23:54

The BI forums are known for being that sort of a place though. With us it's more of a closed community...

Posted by: JdB Nov 10 2007, 23:55

Removed the poll, feeling cheeky naughty.gif

And yes, we rock.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 10 2007, 23:55

Fair enough simplifies a few things biggrin.gif

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 10 2007, 23:57

ok, lets get started somwhere nice and neutral. what do you guys make of the actions of the Pakistani 'government'.

Posted by: JdB Nov 11 2007, 00:08

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Nov 10 2007, 23:57) *
what do you guys make of the actions of the Pakistani 'government'.


That's not really up to discussion tongue.gif

There may be alot of terrorists in Pakistan, but they're not directly threatening Musharraf's position, where as the opposition is. It's the typical move of a dictator.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 11 2007, 01:20

yeh, its outragous, locking up lawyers etc... its the intellectual clampdown.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 14 2007, 22:01

pMASTER asked a while ago about the differences between .45Auto and .45ACP. There are some If you didn't find out already. .45auto has a different rim to the .45ACP it isn't a normal rimless round IIRC. Saw it in guns and ammo earlier god bless that magazine.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 16 2007, 16:26

QUOTE
On Friday, Baluevsky addressed Russia’s upper house of parliament, the Federation Council, that focused on the Bill on CFE Treaty Moratorium. The senators approved the bill with no particular hesitation.

According to Baluevsky, the top-rank military in the West realize validity and reasonableness of Russia’s decision to impose the moratorium. “The day before yesterday, I felt that my colleagues, representatives of the NATO General Staffs, realize validity of Russia’s actions,” the general pointed out.

Russia’s moratorium on CFE Treaty takes effect at night from December 12 to 13, i.e. in 150 days after the respective notification of Russia. The decision on lifting the moratorium will be taken by President Vladimir Putin.


So what do every one think abut this?
A new step to the next cold war? Russia is allready flying ther bombers against NATO countrys (Norway, Denmark, UK, US and Finland have intercepted TU-160 Bombers

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 16 2007, 19:50

I find it funny that you think the Cold War ever ended tongue.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 16 2007, 20:58

It's sabre-ratting, nothing more. Putin has to fortify his position, he is trying to recover a bit of the world power self-esteem his countrymen had lost when the old system crumbled.
If you ask me, the White House does represent an by far higher threat to world peace than the Kremlin does, at least at the moment.

And considering the other thread Hornet has started...
Well, Germany is still fond of the idea of compulsory service, so I will have to bother myself with a bit of soldiering either way, though I try to avoid it as it is just symbolizing a waste of nine months - conscripts have solely three months of basic drill worth nothing, and afterwards they are held as dumbasses to shovel snow. And it is beneath me to choose civy service instead - wiping an elderly's ass, nah thanks.
I'll wait for the result of my physical examination, and then think about the whole thing again. I mainly focus on a future study of law at the moment.

Posted by: Blackscorpion Nov 17 2007, 01:18

QUOTE(Hornet85 @ Nov 16 2007, 17:26) *
So what do every one think abut this?
A new step to the next cold war? Russia is allready flying ther bombers against NATO countrys (Norway, Denmark, UK, US and Finland have intercepted TU-160 Bombers


Mostly Tu-95s and -142s, Finland isn't a NATO country, and mostly fighters and transports here AFAIK.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 17 2007, 12:00

i dont think in recent days a russian bomber has got over the mainland UK, most of the time there intecepted by tornados and told to bugger off somwhere over the north sea.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 17 2007, 15:00

If they came over the mainland the RAF would get rather pissed.

Posted by: Old Bear Nov 17 2007, 15:05

The last time a Soviet/Russian plane had flown over a Nato country, I was playing Harpoon !
I agree with Pmaster :

QUOTE
t's sabre-ratting, nothing more. Putin has to fortify his position, he is trying to recover a bit of the world power self-esteem his countrymen had lost when the old system crumbled.

But ... read http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371925 and this one about http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071113/87843710.html.

Posted by: JdB Nov 17 2007, 15:11

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Nov 17 2007, 15:00) *
If they came over the mainland the RAF would get rather pissed.


If you call intercepting the bomber and escorting it out of your airspace getting rather pissed...

Talking about intercepting aircraft, the last year or two the number of intercept missions over Dutch airspace of unidentified/unresponsive aircraft has increased dramatically. Quite fun when they go through the sound barrier, and half the country complains about the noise biggrin.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 17 2007, 15:30

When the EF2000 was on trials they flew up and down from the north of England to down south via the Welsh coast. They broke the sound barrier too close to shore on a few occasions and there were numerous reports of earthquakes in the region by the public that were between 0.5 - 1.5 on the Richter Scale tongue.gif

Posted by: Linker Split Nov 18 2007, 13:12

hey guys, have you ever hear about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMSUBIN


Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 18 2007, 14:04

Yes. But I've never read anything in depth on them. I'm a SAS / RMC man ^^

Posted by: Linker Split Nov 18 2007, 14:15

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Nov 18 2007, 14:04) *
Yes. But I've never read anything in depth on them. I'm a SAS / RMC man ^^


you know, SAS learns from ComSuBin how to act in battle ^^ biggrin.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 18 2007, 17:16

Most special forces interact with each other quite regularly to teach each other skills and help out with things. The SAS were with GSG-9 at Mogadishu using Stun Grenades for GSG.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 18 2007, 17:28

Comando Raggruppamento Subacquei ed Incursori Teseo Tesei are a good gang of boys smile.gif

But i prefer the Gruppo d'Intervento Spéziale or the NOCS hehe

Posted by: JdB Nov 18 2007, 17:36

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Nov 18 2007, 14:04) *
Yes. But I've never read anything in depth on them. I'm a SAS man ^^


Specifics or "in depth" of SF units and their operations isn't supposed to be public knowledge. The SAS didn't adopt a policy of having everyone sign secrecy contracts after several people found it necessary to convert their experiences into cash by writing books about it for nothing.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 18 2007, 17:40

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 18 2007, 16:36) *
Specifics or "in depth" of SF units and their operations isn't supposed to be public knowledge. The SAS didn't adopt a policy of having everyone sign secrecy contracts after several people found it necessary to convert their experiences into cash by writing books about it for nothing.


You misunderstood me. I only know of the one linker said by name. I have'nt read any of the McNab books or Ryan ones I just meant I know jack about the Italian one. glare.gif

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 18 2007, 17:43

All soldiers writes a contract of secresy. But many stil talks abut what they do...
I can say what unit iam in and what my basic tasks are thats not top secret but i cant tel you what helmet i have on my head or what specific mission i will do or what my main speciality is.

But many soldiers writes books and shit abut ther missions and that sucks bekus then the unit have to change tacticas all over

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 18 2007, 19:41

What do you think about US Army Radars here in Czech republic ?

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 18 2007, 21:29

Just a measure to annoy the shit out of the Russians.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 18 2007, 22:43

Dont forget the foward missile defence USA is puting up in Europe to wink.gif

Russia is geting realy pissed

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 19 2007, 00:08

find it hard to see why....... i mean its not a threat to them, its a counter measure.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 19 2007, 09:11

I find it painfully hilarious that you seem to be of the theory that Russia doesn't have the capablity to send the entire planet back prehistory.

Posted by: Wittmann Nov 19 2007, 12:11

Not as efficiently as they once could have however. The Russian's have alot of material strength and thats about it.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 19 2007, 14:20

all i know is they have lots of crazy special forces. thats enough to scare me. There like the mexican vampires from american dad.

Posted by: Deadeye Nov 19 2007, 15:50

How many counter -rockets will be stationed in Europe? 8?

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 19 2007, 16:23

10 interceptor rockets in Poland.
Directed by the tracking radar in the Czech Republic.
And a final defence line in the United States.

They say this is agains terrorism but hmm Poland? Only Russian missiles will pass ther...

Posted by: Deadeye Nov 19 2007, 16:57

QUOTE(Hornet85 @ Nov 19 2007, 16:23) *
10 interceptor rockets in Poland.
Directed by the tracking radar in the Czech Republic.
And a final defence line in the United States.

They say this is agains terrorism but hmm Poland? Only Russian missiles will pass ther...

I don't think those rockets can only intercept within poland.

ANd 10 rockets? They'll surely stop ANY russian strike rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 19 2007, 16:59

ye sure they can intercept over other countrys to but wy not place like 5 in Polen and 5 in Turkey or something?

With all of them in the same place it cant be to hard to send in the elite sf to take them out tongue.gif
(Need to write a risk assessment on that XD)

Posted by: JdB Nov 19 2007, 17:21

QUOTE(Hornet85 @ Nov 19 2007, 16:59) *
ye sure they can intercept over other countrys to but wy not place like 5 in Polen and 5 in Turkey or something?

With all of them in the same place it cant be to hard to send in the elite sf to take them out tongue.gif
(Need to write a risk assessment on that XD)


That's why they're placing them in at least two different countries, and probably more in the future.

These missiles can intercept far beyond the national borders (and probably even continental borders), making the worldwide spread of them unnecessary, contrary to some Cold War era systems like nukes that were stationed in countries like Turkey. Perhaps this shield is being placed near Russia because the US has long feared that Soviet nukes will end up being sold by base-commanders to, or stolen by terrorists, since these installations are no where near as guarded as they once were. Also countries like Pakistan where the US has invested over 100 million dollars in the last few years to upgrade security for their nukes with things like helicopters, night vision equipment and training to keep their nukes safe.

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 19 2007, 17:28

I just think that we dont need it here dance.gif

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 22 2007, 18:00

QUOTE
Russia will continue rising the combat readiness of its strategic nuclear forces to be able to strike a fast and adequate blow on any aggressor, Vladimir Putin stated during a meeting at the Defense Ministry. “Russia can not stay indifferent to NATO’s obvious “muscle-flexing” near the borders of the Russian Federation,” the president said.


http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/20-11-2007/101245-putin-0

They can say what they want but this will make the cold war alitle hoter haha

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 22 2007, 18:02

you guys think that Europe NEED those rockets ? blink.gif
Just asking, I am not russian fan or something similiar....

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 22 2007, 18:16

no i dont think the world needs nukes at all but they are here so.
If some one in a russian silo flips over after some vodka it will feel good to have the missiles.
and it dont have to be a ICBM a Scud luncher will do harm to

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 22 2007, 22:16

i dont think there necisary. Comon guys do you really think Russia is going to launch a blitskrieg across Europe? There just desperatly trying to cling onto world power status which they have all but lost. There world class status is so last decade, there the 21st century Britain.

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 22 2007, 22:18

They could if they got their act together be a quite important nation but atm they are facing problems which slowly appear to be getting better. As for the missile system I disagree with with it totally. I hate the way that America on behalf of say NATO or the UN puts things in other countries to save their own asses mellow.gif

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 22 2007, 23:38

lo folks,

HH got it spot on there. Son of Starwars Defence System is a relic of the 'original' cold war that Bush senior is getting sonny boy to finish off. What is the point in having a missile defence system on our soil thats only there to protect the states? Ironic that they started the whole thing in the first place.
Russia might be a little poor but they have got the right attitudes when it comes to standing up to the USA!

cheers smile.gif

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 23 2007, 00:14

tbh, I think Vlad just wants Bush to get angry tongue.gif
I mean, we've seen Mr Bush's solution to all his other problems so far, it's about time someone put the US in their place.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could make missiles that either couldn't be detected by starwars or were capable of evading antimissiles somehow though, AI and all that. We should really consider building some....

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 23 2007, 00:41

D@V£: The USA is developing the hypersonic scram jet engine (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ENG_Scramjet_NASA_Explanation_lg.jpg). Imagine a crusie missile that flies at mach 7. By the time your defence system has reacted to the incomeing threat ie fired a missile the target is out of range. Also for defensive purposes the US has developed laser technology desgned to shoot down fast moving inbound missiles. Called the "Airbone Laser" Boeing basically put a massive high-energy laser weapon system on a jumbo jet for the destruction of tactical theatre ballistic missiles. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_747_Airborne_Laser_Cutaway_lg.jpg)
It is said that the Russians have their own versions but we dont know.
Cheers smile.gif

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 23 2007, 09:31

And I suppose they're going to have these aircraft in the skys 24 hours a day accross every bit of the entire planet? Now, normally I wouldn't object to that, but you can't stick a nuclear reactor on a plane! It'd be too heavy! ohmy.gif

I would guess the Russian's might have thier own versions, but ultimately, would they need them? It's always seemed to be the Russian's style to stupid jump into new investments and tend to just employ huge amounts of what they've already got. Which is probabley a better idea than wasting shitloads on the cutting edge specialist combat headwear when a steel helmet from WW2 does just as well. When push comes to shove, I'd hazard a guess that if you aren't talking bombers and ICBMs, then the Russian's probabley have still got a good bit more shove than the Americans. If not in quality of design, then at least in numbers.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 23 2007, 11:53

QUOTE(Elliot Carver @ Nov 22 2007, 23:41) *
D@V£: The USA is developing the hypersonic scram jet engine (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ENG_Scramjet_NASA_Explanation_lg.jpg). Imagine a crusie missile that flies at mach 7. By the time your defence system has reacted to the incomeing threat ie fired a missile the target is out of range. Also for defensive purposes the US has developed laser technology desgned to shoot down fast moving inbound missiles. Called the "Airbone Laser" Boeing basically put a massive high-energy laser weapon system on a jumbo jet for the destruction of tactical theatre ballistic missiles. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_747_Airborne_Laser_Cutaway_lg.jpg)
It is said that the Russians have their own versions but we dont know.
Cheers smile.gif


has that got somthing to do with the mysterious 'Aurora'?

Posted by: Blackscorpion Nov 23 2007, 12:22

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Nov 23 2007, 10:31) *
And I suppose they're going to have these aircraft in the skys 24 hours a day accross every bit of the entire planet? Now, normally I wouldn't object to that, but you can't stick a nuclear reactor on a plane! It'd be too heavy! ohmy.gif


They already did that with B-36s 50 or so years ago. So 'tis not much of an issue.

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 23 2007, 13:35

@Trev: Aurora was a leaked story of the idea for a scram jet (which became the X-43) in the late 80's that was used to distract attention away from other black projects. While everyone was looking for Aurora Lockheed's Skunk Works was toying with anti-gravity air vehicles.

@D@V£

QUOTE
And I suppose they're going to have these aircraft in the skys 24 hours a day accross every bit of the entire planet

Lol no not quite. Just the USA. The X-45 and the naval X-47 are UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle's) designed to patrol US airsapce 24/7. Armed with missiles and bombs they will opperate without human interaction, refueling themselves, patroling by themselves and most importantly engaging a target by themselves (eventually). It is a very scary thought...Skynet from Termaintor anyone? lol

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 23 2007, 14:13

QUOTE(Blackscorpion @ Nov 23 2007, 11:22) *
They already did that with B-36s 50 or so years ago. So 'tis not much of an issue.


Yeah, but 50 years ago scientists were trying to tell everyone that we don't need to drive about in cars more because there was no such thing as global cooling.

Well... I guess if I say anymore I'll be put under surviallance by yet another obscure group with no reason to whatsoever. So, yeah...

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 23 2007, 14:59

Its not that hard patrolling 24/7 with human pilots.
Wher do you think the NATO AWACs are att all times? wink.gif

And Dave trust me a WWII Steel pot helmet will not do as good as my ACH MICH 2002 wink.gif

and abut Aurora its belived to be a Mach 7+ Unmaned spy plane taking over after SR-71 Blackbird.
The Aurora Project only have cust the US Tax payers 6.77Billion Dollars.
Other Lockheed Skunk Works isent in that budget (aka the U2, B2, F117 Uppgrade program)

If the Aurora is a Mach 7+ plane it can fly from a base in the US to russian airspace faster then the radar operators will even know its in the air

A airplane in Mach 7+ will not be that strange after all the North American X-15 did Mach 6.7 in the 1960s so wink.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Nov 23 2007, 15:16

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Nov 23 2007, 15:13) *
Well... I guess if I say anymore


Say Paramore and HH will get a hard-on. biggrin.gif

Well, then it was 1 MW and weighted probably few dozen tonnes. A B-36 has a payload of 33 tonnes. B747 can lift roughly 100-150 tonnes if needed.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 23 2007, 15:59

The excuse of the White House is sickening transparent. Russia with it's capability to turn the entire world into ember is at least theoretically a menace, whilst Iran surely is not.
Irans alleged reaching towards nukes is only a measure to fortify Teherans position against Washington and Tel Aviv, since the number of bombs Iran is apparently preparing is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of warheads the Satan brothers have at their disposal.
A nuclear armed Iran will be able to determine the oil value at will, and the US fear nothing more than an uncontrollable skyrocketing of the price of the stuff that make their economy being the worlds finest. For the same reason, they strongly oppose the axis between Caracas and Teheran.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 23 2007, 16:38

USA will not let Iran to have the bomb...

I dont know if i want to go on a NATO campagne against iran

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 23 2007, 16:45

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 23 2007, 14:59) *
The excuse of the White House is sickening transparent. Russia with it's capability to turn the entire world into ember is at least theoretically a menace, whilst Iran surely is not.
Irans alleged reaching towards nukes is only a measure to fortify Teherans position against Washington and Tel Aviv, since the number of bombs Iran is apparently preparing is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of warheads the Satan brothers have at their disposal.
A nuclear armed Iran will be able to determine the oil value at will, and the US fear nothing more than an uncontrollable skyrocketing of the price of the stuff that make their economy being the worlds finest. For the same reason, they strongly oppose the axis between Caracas and Teheran.


Says the man with the pro-iraq war avatar ph34r.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 23 2007, 16:57

Better reject that idea. The original version of this badge was created by some warriors who went into OEF once.
I strongly opposed the Iraq War, by the way, and so do I oppose military actions against Iran. I'd rather see the Nato launch a full scale assault against Sudan for their continous support of serious war crimes in Darfour.
Unfortunately, the people of Darfour don't sit on oil.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 23 2007, 18:37

Still doesn't change the fact that your avatar can be interpreted as pro-Iraq war tongue.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 23 2007, 20:08

Yep, you've named it: Can.

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 23 2007, 21:13

He is a crusader, how can he be pro-Iraq ??? By those arabic words ?? wacko.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 23 2007, 21:14

Crusaders were Christians sent to the east to find converts for Christianity not Arabs to begin with mellow.gif IIRC.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 24 2007, 10:05

QUOTE(Helping Hand @ Nov 23 2007, 21:14) *
Crusaders were Christians sent to the east to find converts for Christianity not Arabs to begin with mellow.gif IIRC.

Uhm...No. After the Muslim armies had occupied Jerusalem in the Middle Ages, the Pope called for the deployment of a great force of knights to free the 'Holy City' again. That was the Crusade, named after the occidental red cross on white background the knights used as their symbol, and after they had defeated the Muslim armies, they built the Dome Of The Rock on the Temple Mount. Since that day, these folks have been known as the Templars.
Today, radical Muslims refer to many people by which they feel offended as 'Crusaders', but in their insanity not only to single persons like the murdered Theo van Gogh, but also to things or companies, for example McDonalds or Pepsi Cola.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 24 2007, 16:47

Its now its a good idea telling you all that my self and alot of my friends are members off Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (O.S.M.T.H.)
That is for you that dont know the Order of the Templar. Malajn.gif

/Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam

Posted by: Lt. Earth Apple Nov 24 2007, 16:52

There were different Crusades

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 24 2007, 23:44

Hospitallers, Templars, Teutonic knights...eh ?

Posted by: Wittmann Nov 25 2007, 07:33

Back on topic please. Military matters, not a history lesson or a list off your social clubs ladies.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 25 2007, 10:48

Be careful what you say, the Crusades were wars, too.

Posted by: JdB Nov 25 2007, 12:17

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 25 2007, 10:48) *
Be careful what you say, the Crusades were wars, too.


Also students at an officers-academy do nothing else all day than study the past wink.gif

Posted by: Wittmann Nov 25 2007, 13:51

And the tactics of today, at least, they do in Australia.
This is not a history thread however, unless its entirely military related.

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 25 2007, 15:25

ok, to keep the crusade subject on topic ...

do you think todays fighting in the middle east and the destabilization of surrounding countries could be classed as a crusade? The western world Vs The Muslim faith. what do you think?

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 25 2007, 15:28

I'd prefer to think of it as America sticking it's nose into every tyrant or dictators country they know of, try to make them more pro US, fail miserably, then drag in other countries, then leave the country in a worse state than it was in before.

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 25 2007, 17:43

so, the americans are crusaders that were succesfull at first crusades....bu later they will be kicked, demoralized and defeated...right ? mellow.gif

Posted by: Helping Hand Nov 25 2007, 17:45

They're not crusaders just arrogant and self proclaimed rulers of the world.

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Nov 25 2007, 18:01

But its almost the same boppin2.gif
Crusaders invaded M.East beacuse of christianity - > US invaded M.East beacuse of..umm...oil ? yeah.
Crusaders were succesfull, well ...at first crusade( there were more crusades)--> US was succesfull too...at the beginning..

A lot of crusades have been defeated and crusaders went home--->A lot of US soldiers were killed but idiot named G.W. B. wanted them to stay there.... yammer.gif

Oh and for US-politics-in-Iraq-haters, check this :
http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/

Those pictures are funny as hell biggrin.gif

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 25 2007, 20:13

Wasn't one of the main objects of the crusade to take the resources in the Middle East though? I remeber someone said something along the lines of "Hey Guys God put riches in the lands of Godless men to make us go over there and spread God's word. I'm sure of it. We should take the riches as our reward for spreading God's word."

But I could be thinking of the Spanish Conquering them Americas...

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 26 2007, 01:52

your right D@ve, the east was much much richer at the time, particular cities like Constantinople and Alexandra. Not in the Holy Land but all trade routes to the Mediteranian from China and India (no cape of good hope sailing yet) went directly through it.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 26 2007, 16:33

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2947734.ece

Now tell me that you still don't understand my personal crusade against European political correctness accepting stuff like this without batting an eye. Why can't I be as much offended as they are?

Posted by: Valhalian Nov 26 2007, 21:25

QUOTE
A lot of crusades have been defeated and crusaders went home--->A lot of US soldiers were killed but idiot named G.W. B. wanted them to stay there.... yammer.gif


I know (at least from what ive read from you all so far) that youll probably wont agree with me on this one, but: Leaving the place in the state at which it currently is, is in my opinion worse than going there in the first place. Iraq must be stabilized before you can leave to its own fate. By stabilizing I mean raising a strong, capable army and police force with a good training, training new civil servants to help govern the country and helping to rebuild the industry. And only the US is able to do that atm. What do you think would happen, if they packed their bags jumped in their C-5s and flew off tomorrow morning?

Posted by: JdB Nov 26 2007, 21:35

QUOTE(Valhalian @ Nov 26 2007, 21:25) *
What do you think would happen, if they packed their bags jumped in their C-5s and flew off tomorrow morning?


Insurgency, civil war, inter-tribal crimes against humanity/warcrimes. Oh no wait, that's already happening right now...

Whether it's the US armed forces getting attacked or some sort of Iraqi army (which is something fantasized by the US, the 3 different main ethnic groups don't want to form anything together, or want to have anything to do with eachother, besides preferably killing the other groups), there will be "acts of terrorism" in Iraq for many decades to come unless the "democratically elected" government falls and one tribe manages to overpower the other two like Saddam did. After that we will just be back to the situation pre-2003, with the slight difference that many thousands of foreign troops will have died in a country that didn't want them there.

Posted by: Valhalian Nov 26 2007, 21:46

All they need is some time to live along each other in relative peace while governing the country themselves. But that can only be done after what ive wrote earlier. Time is what makes neighbors of enemies and allies of neighbors.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 27 2007, 00:22

QUOTE(Valhalian @ Nov 26 2007, 20:25) *
I know (at least from what ive read from you all so far) that youll probably wont agree with me on this one, but: Leaving the place in the state at which it currently is, is in my opinion worse than going there in the first place. Iraq must be stabilized before you can leave to its own fate. By stabilizing I mean raising a strong, capable army and police force with a good training, training new civil servants to help govern the country and helping to rebuild the industry. And only the US is able to do that atm. What do you think would happen, if they packed their bags jumped in their C-5s and flew off tomorrow morning?


I have to agree with every point you've said there, a lot of people on these boards are mad post modernists who think it's wrong to help people! tongue.gif
If everyone pulls out right now then you're not going to see a decrease in bloodshed. You're going to see a major increase in bloodshed. The only real option is to stay in Iraq. If we leave, people will die. It's not a matter open for debate, it's not a statistic, it's a fact. If we pull out a second before there's a strong democratic government in place with a good degree of control over the armed and police forces either there's going to be a civil war, or another nation is simpley going to move in. How can you compare the life of a few hundread of our soldiers to the lives of the millions of innocent people who have died under saddam, and the potential millions of innocents who are going to die if we pull out. Don't give me any of your bullshit about Oil or the like. If we pull out these people will suffer.

Of course, clearly this is falling on deaf ears. You've all chosen to be the selfish europeans and americans of the past who aren't willing to accept sacrifice. You'd rather just sit at home with your TVs complaining about how the wars costing your precious tax money which could be better spent on improving your already hedonistic lifestyle. There were the exact same people who said we should simpley just let Hitler invade Austria, afterall, there were plenty of Germans there. We shouldn't step in when Germany's raising a huge army. We shouldn't step in when they invade Czechslovakia.... etc.

Choose to ignore what I'm saying if you want. It doesn't change the facts here.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 27 2007, 03:46

absolutly ridiculous. I tell you now if she is lashed, this country will be in absolute uprour. This could lead to a major political fallout with the Sudan. Im sorry to have to say this, and im not a racist, but some of these islamic countries need to grow up and get a clue that different cultures and religions exist.

Posted by: JdB Nov 27 2007, 17:20

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Nov 27 2007, 03:46) *
absolutly ridiculous. I tell you now if she is lashed, this country will be in absolute uprour. This could lead to a major political fallout with the Sudan. Im sorry to have to say this, and im not a racist, but some of these islamic countries need to grow up and get a clue that different cultures and religions exist.


Britain will huff, puff and then send a letter of disapproval, or a security council resolution that gets blocked by China and Russia because they block everything. In the end, nothing will happen. I say evacuate the foreigners and use a tactical-nuke to show what happens to those that think they can impose their beliefs upon others. We're at war with islamic (extremists) already anyway, so pissing them off by sending a few thousand of their followers to the virgins really doesn't change much.

Kind of hard when you live in a medieval culture where certain individuals claiming to be experts on your religion says that there are no other religions than your own wink.gif

It was an international school if I understood the news report right. This goes to show that the tolerance of islam towards other religions has been perverted by those same people, with no other intent than to grab power through the excuse of religion.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 28 2007, 00:02

What outcome of the current Afghanistan war do you predict?
I've recently read something about the study of a think tank stating that at least a doubling of ISAF forces would be necessary to steal the insurgency's thunder - and no NATO nation cannot even afford to deploy some more choppers to this country so the alliance will soon have to rent civilian helicopters to maintain supply of ground troops in Afghanistan.

Posted by: JdB Nov 28 2007, 00:24

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 28 2007, 00:02) *
What outcome of the current Afghanistan war do you predict?
I've recently read something about the study of a think tank stating that at least a doubling of ISAF forces would be necessary to steal the insurgency's thunder - and no NATO nation cannot even afford to deploy some more choppers to this country so the alliance will soon have to rent civilian helicopters to maintain supply of ground troops in Afghanistan.


Will drag on for years to come, then we cannot be bothered (probably through political change), and we pull out "no matter what". As I have said earlier, when the guys coming back from Afghanistan don't even see the point of them being there, and that the current policy doesn't work at all, something has to be wrong.

NATO has no real power when it has to beg it's memberstates to send some troops to actually exist as an organisation.

An IED costs $10, any APC costs over $500.000 at least (the Dutch Army just purchased 10 new Bushmasters to replace vehicles lost in Afghanistan due to IED's, 10 vehicles costing €7.800.000, the IED's that knocked out the APC's being replaced cost far less than $500). This is a war we simply cannot win through force of arms or persistance.

Our trooplevel is so unstable that even the regular infantry units being sent lack proper training to the level of that pre-2006 (when they were deployed to Afghanistan). The number of squadrons in the special operations corps was recently increased from 3 to 4, however we simply have no one to fill them up with, or even to keep up the numbers of the other 3, and they're even getting a substantial increase in pay in the hope that they will stay on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnzA_8Juw94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3ca56n-ls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWHx7R9MPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIW2too4u_o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-BDzy6hMY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZeUaE9dHnE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOog1MCYXL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZlV-JgxTbE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvWhoTu58Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JnGE1gx8bU

The Canadian armed forces also seem to have alot of high quality videos online, like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_S9P1kMNuM. Does show their North American side a bit though imo, with all the screaming at eachother, I haven't seen that at all in Dutch videos.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 28 2007, 03:05

Not realy this is wy wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FtSEq27cfU

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 28 2007, 06:41

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 28 2007, 00:24) *
An IED costs $10, any APC costs over $500.000 at least (the Dutch Army just purchased 10 new Bushmasters to replace vehicles lost in Afghanistan due to IED's, 10 vehicles costing €7.800.000, the IED's that knocked out the APC's being replaced cost far less than $500). This is a war we simply cannot win through force of arms or persistance.

tiredsmiley.gif I wished we actually would replace our losses in a sufficient way. Four FENNEKs, eleven DINGOs, seven uparmoured WOLFs, a FUCHs and a bus were lost in IED attacks or suicidide bombings, but instead of replacements for those they decided to acquire the new PUMA IFV which cannot be deployed to Afghanistan because of missing airlifting capabilities.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 28 2007, 14:48

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 27 2007, 23:24) *
Will drag on for years to come, then we cannot be bothered (probably through political change), and we pull out "no matter what". As I have said earlier, when the guys coming back from Afghanistan don't even see the point of them being there, and that the current policy doesn't work at all, something has to be wrong.


It's not a matter of how unwinnable it is. If our current stratagies aren't working then we need to change them. We shouldn't pull out just because "it's a bit more difficult than we thought it would be". I've already pointed out that if we do pull out we'll be right back at square one, minus a hell of a lot of money. But like I've said, if you really want to believe that everyone would be better off if we did pull out, then be my guest.

You can't compare the cost of Weapons Systems and a few hundread of our Soldiers, who knew when they signed up that they'd be doing exactly this sort of thing, against the lives of millions (and, potentially, Billions) of innocent people.

Posted by: Blackscorpion Nov 28 2007, 14:59

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 28 2007, 07:41) *
tiredsmiley.gif I wished we actually would replace our losses in a sufficient way. Four FENNEKs, eleven DINGOs, seven uparmoured WOLFs, a FUCHs and a bus were lost in IED attacks or suicidide bombings, but instead of replacements for those they decided to acquire the new PUMA IFV which cannot be deployed to Afghanistan because of missing airlifting capabilities.


thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif

Anyone wanna buy/rent an An-124 for us?

Posted by: JdB Nov 28 2007, 15:29

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Nov 28 2007, 14:48) *
We shouldn't pull out just because "it's a bit more difficult than we thought it would be". I've already pointed out that if we do pull out we'll be right back at square one, minus a hell of a lot of money. But like I've said, if you really want to believe that everyone would be better off if we did pull out, then be my guest.

You can't compare the cost of Weapons Systems and a few hundred of our Soldiers, who knew when they signed up that they'd be doing exactly this sort of thing, against the lives of millions (and, potentially, Billions) of innocent people.


The politicians said it would be hard, the military already knew that it was next to impossible with the current funding and attitude of the population. The politicians chose to go there, they're choosing to stay there, but they aren't giving the military anymore funding, or making it any more appealing to serve in the military. There is no reason from a military perspective to stay there as they can't even secure their own bases and a few of the outlaying villages with over 2000 troops. To secure just the Balluchi valley would take more than 4000 troops, a trooplevel that we simply cannot sustain for prolonged periods of time. Imagine what it would take to make the whole of Afghanistan relatively secure.

Of course I can. When we're running out of money like it is doing now, we cannot replace lost equipment, and end up with undermanned, undertrained and underequiped units, we pull the soldiers out, because they won't do much good anyway in their current state. The solution is of course as simple as it is impossible: to get countries that aren't fighting in Afghanistan to pay for the cost of our operations. A nice sci-fi dream. For every 1 year that our soldiers operate in Uruzgan, the armed forces need at least 3 years to recuperate in terms of money, material and manpower.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 28 2007, 17:22

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 28 2007, 14:29) *
Of course I can. When we're running out of money like it is doing now, we cannot replace lost equipment, and end up with undermanned, undertrained and underequiped units, we pull the soldiers out, because they won't do much good anyway in their current state. The solution is of course as simple as it is impossible: to get countries that aren't fighting in Afghanistan to pay for the cost of our operations. A nice sci-fi dream. For every 1 year that our soldiers operate in Uruzgan, the armed forces need at least 3 years to recuperate in terms of money, material and manpower.


So, you're suggesting we simpley pull out? I've already said what would happen then. We aren't winning right now, but if we pull out now do you really think that we'll solve anything other than just stopping the money going into the war? There's still going to be massive amounts of damage done in the country. If you want to look at it economically, then consider the costs that would have to be taken in the rebuilding of these countries. But I guess it isn't your money that's being spent there, so that's ok with you, isn't it?

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 28 2007, 17:55

QUOTE(Blackscorpion @ Nov 28 2007, 14:59) *
thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif

Anyone wanna buy/rent an An-124 for us?

Yeah, that's another example of mislead thinking in our Army. I mean, we should prefer the European armament industry, even if their products could be a way less capable compared to lets say American defense goods. But we should not frigging wait decades until they finish their money grave projects. More than one time the Americans offered us to lease or buy C17 Globemasters and C130 Hercules to improve our missing airlift capabilities. Our politicians choose instead to wait until 2015 for the new Airbus A400M, God knows whether they finish that bird at all.

Posted by: JdB Nov 28 2007, 18:03

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 28 2007, 17:55) *
More than one time the Americans offered us to lease or buy C17 Globemasters and C130 Hercules to improve our missing airlift capabilities. Our politicians choose instead to wait until 2015 for the new Airbus A400M, God knows whether they finish that bird at all.


The Dutch airforce is/was rumoured to be in the market for two used C17's from the Americans, however every new election and every new poll showing less support for the war diminishes the chances of the armed forces getting any extra money to spend.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 28 2007, 18:10

I dont know if its to bad to rent the AN-124 and AN-225.

Denmark have done 9 flights the last 6 weeks with AN-124 and is going to do 2 flights this weekend with AN-225.
If you got the money and realy want to deploy its not a problem smile.gif

Denmark have deployed a Leopard 2a5DK Platoon with support and extra tank with the AN-124s and will deploy a LogCoy with the AN-225.
So yes having C-17 with in the airforce is nice but not a must have.
Can allways rent C-17 or AN airplanes if needed.

The order to deploy the Leoprd platoon came and the next day the AN-124 landed in Denmak so they are not that hard to get a hold of wink.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 28 2007, 18:37

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 28 2007, 18:03) *
The Dutch airforce is/was rumoured to be in the market for two used C17's from the Americans, however every new election and every new poll showing less support for the war diminishes the chances of the armed forces getting any extra money to spend.

Even for all the beloved humanitarian aid missions a C17 would do the job much better than our old Transalls.

Posted by: Elliot Carver Nov 28 2007, 23:14

Sorry but i disagree.

This lady was in a foreign country so she should have found out about and followed that countries laws regardless of its religious or political backgrounds. I think its disgusting how the western world thinks it can redicule and condemn Islamic countries law when it itself imprisons foreigners without charge for breaking its law.

If a Sudanese islamic teacher came to the UK, segregated the class into boys and girls and then started teaching anti-western lessons, something which would be considered normal in Sudan, she would loose her job and might even be arrested for preaching Islamic hatred.Its hypocritical for us to think that its ok for this British lady to go to this country and break their laws. This somehow suggests that as a person from the western world 3rd world countries laws do not apply to her. Either its her own fault for not reachearching Sudan law before traveling or she did it deliberately.

When we arrest an al qaeda terrorist in London Osama Binladen doesn't issue a statement demanding the terrorists release and question the arrest as "surprising and disappointing". Personally my view is that she should have known she was traveling to an Islamic, dangerous, 3rd world country with laws that are sucnificantly different to the UK's. Like in the UK if she broke the law here she is a criminal and like the UK she should accept the punishment handed to her.

I hope that the Sudanese islamic court hands her the full punishment. I hope it uses the opportunity to stand up to western pressure and in force its law. Its about time the western world woke up and realized that the eath doesnt end at the equator....


cheers
Carver

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 28 2007, 23:26

I disagree.
It's not a matter of religious intolerance. It's a matter of Religions being Intolerant. There's a difference between someone preaching hate to uneducated masses and someone making a genuine mistake. And, to be honest, the Bear wasn't named Muhammed after Mr. ProphetMan who obviously can't be named or have his picture drawn by people far far away (I'd actually laugh if the Aliens studying us were just sitting up there in their ships drawing pictures of this guy 24-7! ohmy.gif ), the Bear was named after one of the Students. If someone who actively knows me named a Bear after me I wouldn't immediately assume that the bear was named after St. David, would I? This is just an attempt by the vindicative to attack this woman. Nothing more.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 28 2007, 23:34

The question is why it is regarded as racism here to restrict the rights of foreigners whilst to obey their customs and habits regardless how crazy they are is seen as the most normal thing in world. Why do we allow Muslim immigrants to build mosques with incredibly tall minaretts whilst a Christian in lets say Sudan would hardly be allowed to build a church there?
This could be doubtlessly continued ad nauseum.

Posted by: JdB Nov 28 2007, 23:36

I absolutely agree Carver, they should definitely stand up to those evil Western countries. After all Sudan is the brave African nation trying to prevent a UN force from entering it's territory to stop genocide in a fun place like Darfur, where supposedly over 200.000 people have been massacred as they don't fit in with Islam. They should absolutely defy anyone that values the life of women and children over the name of a teddybear (millions of muslims are named Mohammed)! In no way is this an attempt to send a signal to the UN not to deploy the peacekeeping force that will uncover (or rather prove, since it's already known) the atrocities supported and even carried out by the Sudanese regime!

QUOTE
Why do we allow Muslim immigrants to build mosques with incredibly tall minaretts whilst a Christian in lets say Sudan would hardly be allowed to build a church there?


Germany 2007 vs medieval times

Actually now that I think of it, muslims were more tolerant in the middle ages, well except for the people coming with swords to kick them out of Jewish/Christian Holy Land (both Judaism and Christianity being much older religions).

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 29 2007, 20:46

Rest In Peace to the two Danes who were killed in action today in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Hornet85 Nov 29 2007, 23:11

Resquiescat In Pace
Plus Esse Quam Simultatur

The soldiers wher from the Recon Corpse and wher on mission in Gereshk Valley wher they are suporting the rebuilding of the country when they got hit by Taliban fire and died.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 30 2007, 15:27

I recently read something about a Taliban attack against unarmed engineers who were trying to repair a bridge South-Central Afghanistan. Also, an unarmed convoy of a German organization on it's way to a hospital had taken heavy fire recently.
If I read stories like these, I wonder why people in Europe don't feel the same rage now which made them actually protest for the Afghanistan war back in 2001. Furthermore I wonder why not more Afghan people get upset when they hear about such incidents.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 30 2007, 15:35

Yesterday, a twelve years old girl was arrested in Abu Dhabi who had been subjected to repeated sexual abuse for years. The accusation: Forbbiden sexual contact to a man. Tragicomical, isn't it?
If you ask me, this is not a matter of accepting another country's customs and habits, it's a question of common sense.
But what else should one expect - a Sura of Quran actually describes that Mohamed had sex with a girl.

Considering how archaic the Islamic jurisprudence is, I dare to state that this law is solely based upon the attempt of old pedophile farts or even Mohamed himself to prevent prosecution.

Posted by: D@V£ Nov 30 2007, 15:38

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7121025.stm

I can't comment on this, really, I can't. This has gotten waaaaaaay out of control.

Posted by: pMASTER Nov 30 2007, 15:44

rofl.gif You wanna know which headline I'd appreciate to read only one frigging time?

BBC News | Africa | Shoot Sudanese protestors, says UK

Posted by: JdB Nov 30 2007, 19:01

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Nov 30 2007, 15:27) *
If I read stories like these, I wonder why people in Europe don't feel the same rage now which made them actually protest for the Afghanistan war back in 2001. Furthermore I wonder why not more Afghan people get upset when they hear about such incidents.


Europeans complain about the lack of action when it comes to mass-murderers, dictators and genocide all the time, but when it turns out they're going to have to pay to send people over there to solve the problem, they back down very quickly. Also we go there because the public opinion wants us to stop these crimes, and when the first soldiers dies over 2/3 of the people scream that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. You would want to blow up so many parliaments across Europe to be back in a time where the one person making decisions, and not caring one bit about the public opinion was a king or emperor...

Because when they do, their entire family gets massacred as revenge/to set an example, NATO needs to show that it is the top dog in Afghanistan, not the soft ass approach of rebuilding a school that gets burned down the next day, and the children and teachers tortured and strung up in the nearest tree. Afghanistan has been ruled by the strongest leader for as long as people have lived there, our Western brotherly love doesn't work there.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 30 2007, 20:07

absolutly ridicious. Its really quite strange how events have unfolded as you point out D@ve. During the middle ages Islam was almost certinly more liberal. The problem is the work of Mohamed can be interpreted in as much different ways as the Bible. The real problem is the select few who think its there right to tell everyone else how it is supposed to be interpreted. That is taken word for word in most North African/Middle Easten Islamic states, whereas liberal Muslims in Britain and some nations such as the United Emirates make there own view of what being a good muslim is. Its the Islamic equivilent of the 15th century Vatican, deciding who is fit for Christainity and who is not.

The problem as i see also is Islamic nations are using any slight discredit on there religion as a excuse to piss of the west, its as if they want to provoke some sort of reaction. There eager to call the US actions a cristian crusade, and yet seem blind to see that there pretty much making it that. First a cartoon in a newspaper, and now this, i wonder how these guys would react if Team America was screened over there.

What is even more hilarious is the recent actions of a one Osama Bin Laden. Our friend Osama seems to be more and more approaching some sort of Islamic extremist centre ground. He is no longer continously condeming the USA and promising further attacks, be seems more interested in Mortages, Interest rates and the European view of the USA.

@ Carver, this is a british citizen were talking about. As a brit she has every right to seek help from the British embassy. Its a complete farce as far as im concered, just rabel rising for the goverment in order to gain the support of the populace. Nothing like a good old fashioned execution. I for one am not willing to let one of our citizens be used as a piece of meat by a complete joke of a state.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Nov 30 2007, 21:07

QUOTE(JdB @ Nov 30 2007, 18:01) *
NATO needs to show that it is the top dog in Afghanistan, not the soft ass approach of rebuilding a school that gets burned down the next day, and the children and teachers tortured and strung up in the nearest tree. Afghanistan has been ruled by the strongest leader for as long as people have lived there, our Western brotherly love doesn't work there.


No, what Nato needs to do is maintain the support of the Afgan population. Lets just blow shit up makes no sence at all. 'Western brotherly love' does work, The afgans dont like the Taliban, but they still need to know were there to help them. If we dont rubuild stuff, then we loose the crucial local support, if the taliban come in the next day and knock it down its a bitter sweet thing. The schools knocked down but its the Taliban the people are angry at, not the NATO forces.

The effect of which is Local communies stop co-operating with the Taliban (and some already activly resist them), Theres a increased recrutment into the Afgan army and decreased desertion. That is the only way the war in Afganistan is ever going to be won. Stop re-building stuff and the war will be lost in Months.

Posted by: JdB Nov 30 2007, 22:14

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Nov 30 2007, 21:07) *
No, what Nato needs to do is maintain the support of the Afgan population. Lets just blow shit up makes no sence at all. 'Western brotherly love' does work, The afgans dont like the Taliban, but they still need to know were there to help them. If we dont rubuild stuff, then we loose the crucial local support, if the taliban come in the next day and knock it down its a bitter sweet thing. The schools knocked down but its the Taliban the people are angry at, not the NATO forces.

The effect of which is Local communies stop co-operating with the Taliban (and some already actively resist them), Theres a increased recrutment into the Afgan army and decreased desertion. That is the only way the war in Afganistan is ever going to be won. Stop re-building stuff and the war will be lost in Months.


We tried that, as I said, we tried to rebuild schools. The locals were angry at our troops for not protecting them (aka permanently stationing a fireteam near every building in the entire valley) instead of the Taliban who actually commited the atrocities. Central and Southern Afghanistan is the heartland of the Taliban, many of these families have relatives that are fighting for the Taliban. No matter how much you try to rebuild, the thing is they just don't want it, they want to enforce the Sharia and for the foreign invaders to leave or preferably die.

The special forces groups that discovered such atrocities said so themselves, we need to show them who's boss, if we don't the population will never take us seriously, Afghanistan is a culture of the strongest, compassion gets you in power here, in Afghanistan it doesn't get you anywhere. When our soldiers talk to village elders, or any civilians for that matter, they all say that they might help the foreign troops, were it not for the Taliban threatening to massacre entire villages if they do. We need to launch much more large, well coordinated combat operations (not like Spin Farce where we lacked troops to fully encircle the valley to be able to squeeze out the resistance that now managed to escape through a gap in the Southern positions), as supposed to the patrols that we do now, which only serve as prime PR moments for the Taliban when they IED another patrol. We can't even prevent our own bases from coming under attack, so securing surrounding villages and PRT projects are just an illusion. We have the most heavily armed force supporting a PRT in the whole of Afghanistan, and the Taliban is the boss in all areas but our own 2 bases.

It's like going into a village that has just been attacked by Taliban, and half the population has been tortured and killed, and then saying to the remaining people "yeah sorry about that, but here maybe this waterpump we're going to construct will ease the pain". Without security first there cannot be any reconstruction. They call them Provincial Reconstruction Teams, well what is there to reconstruct, Afghanistan has never had anything in the way of a modern infrastructure for the last 200 years. Provincial Construction Teams would have been a better name at least, yet still as useless. The only reason we're talking about reconstruction is because that is how most governments have, and are trying to justify their presence in Afghanistan to their voters.

Furthermore the mentioning of many joining the ANA (Afghan National Army) is futile, it's either join the army, fight for the Taliban, produce drugs or die from starvation. The Taliban have already started targeting families of men serving the government, the entire government is corrupt down to the bone, this is a nightmare without end. Soon the population will be so scared of the Taliban hurting their relatives that they will not even think about joining the army. The right of the strongest will have won once again. It was foolish to begin with, to think that we would go in there and everybody would be cheering us and adopting our way of life and political system, similar to the American situation in Iraq that went from partying in the streets to the current civil war. Liberating was good, trying to impose the US political system was not. Democracy is not suited for every culture and situation. The ANA is a hopelessly corrupt mess, if it weren't for advisers from our Marines leading them in the field, they would either break contact and run, get wiped out or at the very least sustain massive loses. As said by one of those advisers "the ANA soldiers are really brave, they will often run head first into enemy fire without thinking about their own safety". It is pretty much like what the ARVN was during the Vietnam war, lead by Americans they could hold their own, but without the advisers and massive US airpower they were useless, just like the ANA.

Posted by: JdB Nov 30 2007, 22:28

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Nov 30 2007, 20:07) *
absolutly ridicious. Its really quite strange how events have unfolded as you point out D@ve. During the middle ages Islam was almost certinly more liberal. The problem is the work of Mohamed can be interpreted in as much different ways as the Bible. The real problem is the select few who think its there right to tell everyone else how it is supposed to be interpreted.

Its a complete farce as far as im concered, just rabel rising for the goverment in order to gain the support of the populace. Nothing like a good old fashioned execution.


Islam (and other religions for that matter) is just being used for political purposes these days, power hungry clerics wanting power for themselves, men wanting to suppress women (just like the Roman Catholic church tried to do), no protesters calling for her execution were female, this shows both that Islam is a medieval religion, as it's followers still believe in things that we've laughed about for say, 200 years, and that the men want to hold on to their position of having absolute power over women, and strict interpretations of religious texts. I don't understand the whole fuss about Mohamed, he is the most important prophet of the Islamic religion, but by no means the only one. Not all of those prophets would now be called pedophiles in our culture for abusing little girls...

Posted by: Hornet85 Dec 1 2007, 03:12

Hvil i fred krigere!

PFC Mark Visholm (1985-2007)
PFC Casper Alexander Cramer (1986-2007)

Valhalla the gods await me
Open wide thy gates embrace me.
Great hall of the battle slain
With sword in hand.
All those who stand on shore
Raise high your hands to bid a last
farewell to the Viking land.

Posted by: Hornet85 Dec 6 2007, 15:33



Salute!

Posted by: Impale_that_Lee† Dec 6 2007, 16:56

Salute !



Posted by: Bracken Dec 13 2007, 22:44

Hi,
I just recently brought the DVD NZSAS:First amoung equals.
Trailers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxAYr7JuO0I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZt9b6tGCKU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2wde8Y_PPA


Cheapest seller I found
~15 USD
http://www.gpstore.co.nz/DVDs/1545475.html

Anyway, as said its a documentry about New Zealand SAS training.

Selection involves, as I understood it.. although please understand some of this is wrong because I have only watched it once and didn't really pay much attention to how long each part lasted, so am only going off rough memory. I will update this post when I watch it again.

Need two years in NZDF before applying.
First, 10 days of vigorous marching, running, navigating ect
One guy said, "we ate pretty much nothing and had pretty much no sleep".
But as I understand it, they had 1-4 hours sleep every 3 or so days on average.
The seven that remained, then did a nine month basic SAS training course.
At the end the remaining five were chased by NZDF(dogs, hueys ect) for about five days on end through the bush. After they had made the extraction zone, they were taken off behind cameras. Then put through 48 hours of some sort of torture/humiliation, before they were exepted as the lowest of the low in NZSAS.

They then did two years training, in CQB, pathfinding, reconnaissance, demolitions ect. Half way though, each of the five were split into a different specialization (boat crew, mountain, Air) and trained extensivly in that area. They then came together, and trained in many a live fire mission, before being deployed to afghanistan (show ends).

Edit: fixed comments as was the wrong place to ask smile.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Dec 16 2007, 11:59

The title of that movie brings another question into my mind. Some years ago an inofficial ranking of the worlds finest special forces was set up by Jane's, the "Big Five", which included

  1. UK Special Air Service
  2. AUS Special Air Service Regiment
  3. US Combat Applications Group
  4. ?
  5. GE Kommando Spezialkräfte
Which unit held the 4th position?

Posted by: Blackscorpion Dec 16 2007, 12:26

US Navy SEALs or Polish GROM?

Posted by: JdB Dec 16 2007, 15:55

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Dec 16 2007, 11:59) *
Which unit held the 4th position?


You can't rate these units, since many have different functions and uses that the other ones don't have. I'm sure special operations operators across the globe had a good laugh regarding this 3rd party dick measuring contest. The only thing that such a list is useful for is providing people not in the SF with fuel to insult people on the internet "haha, we're higher on the list than you XD". The best SF are those that you hear the least about.

Posted by: Bracken Dec 16 2007, 23:52

Yeah sorry, I was not intending to start this debate or promote anyone. I was just trying to explain what selection involved for those who didn't want to get the DVD but were still interested about the subject. sweatingbullets.gif

Edit: Was just checking, in case anybody got the wrong idea smile.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Dec 17 2007, 00:12

JdB's comment had nothing to do with your very educative explanation regarding NZSAS.

Don't be sorry or you'll be crucified by your genitals! biggrin.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Dec 29 2007, 03:49

QUOTE(JdB @ Dec 16 2007, 15:55) *
You can't rate these units, since many have different functions and uses that the other ones don't have. I'm sure special operations operators across the globe had a good laugh regarding this 3rd party dick measuring contest. The only thing that such a list is useful for is providing people not in the SF with fuel to insult people on the internet "haha, we're higher on the list than you XD". The best SF are those that you hear the least about.


I did not meant these ordinals to be the ranking of a certain unit. Of course it is kinda silly dick comparison and you'll find often someone stating that his nations special forces are better than another for whatsoever reason. However, taking the most important aspects in consideration like combat experience, gear, former successes and so on, a peak of the mass of different unit becomes apparent.
One example: The German combat diver company's reputation was so high in the early sixties that they were asked by the US government to train the then-UDT, the later Navy Seals. However, they lack of combat experience till today and probably weren't included in that list. Take Russian special forces, they've fought like wolves in Chechnya but they bugger things up when a hostage siege emerges.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 6 2008, 19:13

QUOTE
Islam (and other religions for that matter) is just being used for political purposes these days, power hungry clerics wanting power for themselves, men wanting to suppress women (just like the Roman Catholic church tried to do), no protesters calling for her execution were female, this shows both that Islam is a medieval religion, as it's followers still believe in things that we've laughed about for say, 200 years, and that the men want to hold on to their position of having absolute power over women, and strict interpretations of religious texts. I don't understand the whole fuss about Mohamed, he is the most important prophet of the Islamic religion, but by no means the only one. Not all of those prophets would now be called pedophiles in our culture for abusing little girls...


However, I would ask you to respect peoples democratic right to have a religion. This post is bigoted if I may say. And before you criticize me for being Catholic, muslim or Jew, I am an Athiest and Socialist.


FAO Elliot Carver



Do you have evidence of Gerry Adams leadership of the IRA that you have alledged in another thread?

Posted by: Helping Hand Jan 6 2008, 19:45

Use the edit button dude. Religion has always been used a scapegoat for people to get what they want. It is the root of all evil and always will be. I'm agnostic so you can't really ridicule me.

Posted by: Daniel Jan 6 2008, 20:59

Apparently religion is also being used as the scapegoat for the root of all evil. smile.gif
Sorry, I must have missed the part where local church volunteers caring for the sick and elderly is evil.

Careful with your generalisations people.

Posted by: Daniel Von Rommel Jan 6 2008, 21:22

The greatest ability of the devil is it's capacity to hide itself at the eyes of the human

Posted by: Daithí Jan 6 2008, 21:56

QUOTE
Careful with your generalisations people.


Wishful thinking sir.

Posted by: Daniel Jan 7 2008, 02:03

Care to digress?

Posted by: Zipper5 Jan 7 2008, 12:37

I find when I hear these stories that it makes me sick. The people want to execute a woman for allowing her class to name a teddy bear, a toy, Muhammed. I am at a loss of words as to how... utterly stupid that sounds in my head. I agree with Trevor, the people keep looking for an excuse to use their religion as a reason to commit atrocities such as executing an innocent woman for naming a teddy bear Muhammed, which happens to be the same name as the most important Muslim Prophet. I do not at all believe the people do it for their religion, I believe they do it because they want to, and they know people will follow them. They want a fight. I told my Dad as I was watching that story on CNN that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that SAS had gone in and broken her out. In fact I think that's what should have happened.

Now, I live in the Middle-East. Qatar to be exact. There is a US military presence over here and the ex pat-to-national ratio is about 10:1. Yet the majority of people over here are nice, and have nothing against the west (of course, apart from the few teenagers who think that cursing the west makes them sound smart). I'm Canadian, but they look at me at first glance as an American... And they don't care! I see this happening, and I think it's a disgrace to these people over here. I have actually heard mature adults comment about how this is wrong, and they themselves are Muslim. Those people protesting only do it for a fight, not because of their religion.

Posted by: brataccas Jan 7 2008, 14:24

Canada = Americas hat boppin2.gif

sry just messin with ye sweatingbullets.gif


Posted by: Daniel Jan 7 2008, 17:32

QUOTE
wouldn't be surprised to hear that SAS had gone in and broken her out
THAT would have been cool.

Posted by: communistbastard Jan 7 2008, 19:15

QUOTE(Zipper5 @ Jan 7 2008, 03:37) *
I find when I hear these stories that it makes me sick. The people want to execute a woman for allowing her class to name a teddy bear, a toy, Muhammed. I am at a loss of words as to how... utterly stupid that sounds in my head. I agree with Trevor, the people keep looking for an excuse to use their religion as a reason to commit atrocities such as executing an innocent woman for naming a teddy bear Muhammed, which happens to be the same name as the most important Muslim Prophet. I do not at all believe the people do it for their religion, I believe they do it because they want to, and they know people will follow them. They want a fight. I told my Dad as I was watching that story on CNN that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that SAS had gone in and broken her out. In fact I think that's what should have happened.

Now, I live in the Middle-East. Qatar to be exact. There is a US military presence over here and the ex pat-to-national ratio is about 10:1. Yet the majority of people over here are nice, and have nothing against the west (of course, apart from the few teenagers who think that cursing the west makes them sound smart). I'm Canadian, but they look at me at first glance as an American... And they don't care! I see this happening, and I think it's a disgrace to these people over here. I have actually heard mature adults comment about how this is wrong, and they themselves are Muslim. Those people protesting only do it for a fight, not because of their religion.

First of all I am not a Muslim but,

You have to remember that any portrayals of the prophet Muhammed are strictly forbidden by the laws of Islam. Being a teacher in a Muslim country, she should have realized what she was getting herself into by allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammed. I see that you are an expat but you also happen to be living in one of the rather progressive nation states in the Middle East; as an expat in any country you must be aware of local customs and be respectful of them. I mean a few years back if you remember there was all that hoopla over the Danish media making a political cartoon featuring the prophet Muhammed, I mean it was a worldwide riot.

and that's my two cents on religion

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 7 2008, 20:33

QUOTE(communistbastard @ Jan 7 2008, 19:15) *
First of all I am not a Muslim but,

You have to remember that any portrayals of the prophet Muhammed are strictly forbidden by the laws of Islam. Being a teacher in a Muslim country, she should have realized what she was getting herself into by allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammed.


You have to remember that any religious motivated murder is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Western world. Being a citizen of the Netherlands long enough, the killer of Theo von Gogh should have realized what he was getting himself into by killing the director for religious reasons.
See what I mean? Justice should be served in this world by the laws of sanity and humanity and not by narrow-minded clerical commandments, regardless from which religion they originate.
In this issue I have to fully agree with JdB. Above all we are human beings, not believers.

Posted by: JdB Jan 7 2008, 21:51

QUOTE(pMASTER @ Jan 7 2008, 20:33) *
You have to remember that any religious motivated murder is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Western world. Being a citizen of the Netherlands long enough, the killer of Theo von Gogh should have realized what he was getting himself into by killing the director for religious reasons.


Some of his fellow terrorists were ethnically Dutch, but had converted to Islam. I very much doubt they would have thought of blowing up buildings or murdering prominent people had it not been for their religion.

He did not think about the consequences of his actions in a judicial way though, he was trying to die as a martyr, something only the controlled firing of the police prevented.

Posted by: D@V£ Jan 7 2008, 22:41

Does anyone know when the Atlas Oryx entered service? I can't seem to find this information anywhere wacko.gif

Posted by: Blackscorpion Jan 7 2008, 23:36

If you're referring to MBDA ERYX, the "smaller cousin of MILAN", Wiki says '94 with production beginning 5 years earlier.

Posted by: D@V£ Jan 8 2008, 00:56

I thought it would be quite obvious I was refering to the Atlas Oryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Oryx

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 01:22

QUOTE
I told my Dad as I was watching that story on CNN that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that SAS had gone in and broken her out. In fact I think that's what should have happened.

They've dumped many other British citizens why would it change now?

QUOTE
THAT would have been cool.

WOULD.
Let's not fantatise about special forces and what they MIGHT do.


QUOTE
You have to remember that any religious motivated murder is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Western world.

Why should your law be in effect in Sudan? The Islamic Government has a mandate. When you are in another
country, you respect THEIR laws. Common sense like.


Posted by: Blackscorpion Jan 8 2008, 02:28

Eryx, Oryx... I was quite bloody tired at that point. Brains might've thought it's a typo... or you did a ninja edit! ohmy.gif

Posted by: D@V£ Jan 8 2008, 14:13

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 00:22) *
WOULD.
Let's not fantatise about special forces and what they MIGHT do.


It's not what special forces might do, it's what special forces should do. To be honest, if the government is going to kowtow to these people and let a British citizen, one of the very people they were elected to serve, stand any chance of execution for a "crime" such as that, then they aren't doing their job. I'm getting a bit sick of the government just idly standing by and looking for diplomatic solutions to situations that can, and should, be resolved by direct action. Frankly, it was just a repeat of the situation with the Navy personal who were captured by the Iranians. We are looking like idiots because our government is letting these countries make idiots out of us.

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 20:08

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 01:22) *
Why should your law be in effect in Sudan? The Islamic Government has a mandate.

Why do many Muslims claim the right on Shar'ia then even when they don't have a mandate for it?
QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 01:22) *
you respect THEIR laws. Common sense like.

Common sense yes if you mean the way of least resistance. The way of wisely adapting oneself to a certain situation despite standing in inner opposition. Then I'd say yes.

But Shar'ia is in no way connected to common sense. Even the most secular interpretations - it is the same like with the Bible - are the 101 of how to become a little despotic violent sex offender.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 20:09

QUOTE
To be honest, if the government is going to kowtow to these people and let a British citizen, one of the very people they were elected to serve, stand any chance of execution for a "crime" such as that, then they aren't doing their job.


I'll repeat myself. If you travel, and especially teach in an Islamic State, indeed any state, you obey their laws.
It's called respect.

QUOTE
I'm getting a bit sick of the government just idly standing by and looking for diplomatic solutions to situations that can, and should, be resolved by direct action.

Well my opinion is that it's more of a restless gung-ho send in the SAS agenda. Either way, direct action, if you want to call it that, should be a last resort, always. Most SAS ''direct action'' I know of resulted in innocent civilians being shot and killed, for instance Loughgall, South Armagh. As well as baking cakes for people they shot. Have you any examples of were the government stood ''idly by''? I guess they didn't stand idly by when they went into Iraq to get rid of Saddaam and get his chemical weapons biggrin.gif

QUOTE
Frankly, it was just a repeat of the situation with the Navy personal who were captured by the Iranians.


Again, would'nt have arisen if borders were respected.

QUOTE
Why do many Muslims claim the right on Shar'ia then even when they don't have a mandate for it?

How can I answer for extremeist Islamists. Stick to the topic instead of trying to tarnish Muslims.
When you are in a country were people have decided they want such a system, you respect it.

QUOTE
But Shar'ia is in no way connected to common sense. Even the most secular interpretations - it is the same like with the Bible - are the 101 of how to become a little despotic violent sex offender.


Well thats pure bullsh*t and bigoted. This isn't the first time you have linked the Bible
with sexual abuse. That is bigotry, I let you off the last time, not this time however.
Shar'ia law is the choice in Sudan, if you go there, you obey it. Live with that, instead of
trying to impose your bigoted agenda on us.

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 20:15

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:09) *
Again, would'nt have arisen if borders were respected.


They were respected. Respectable expertise say that the incident was clearly provoked by the Iranians. They did that before, by the way - it was one humble reason for a war between Iran and the US, and later for a huge ammount of sinked tonnage during the 2nd Gulf War, when Iranian vessels attacked merchant ships and oil tankers in international waters of the Gulf.

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:09) *
How can I answer for extremeist Islamists. Stick to the topic instead of trying to tarnish Muslims.
When you are in a country were people have decided they want such a system, you respect it.


As a free man I shall obey the system but I would never respect it.

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:09) *
Well thats pure bullsh*t and bigoted. This isn't the first time you have linked the Bible with sexual abuse. That is bigotry, I let you off the last time, not this time however.
Shar'ia law is the choice in Sudan, if you go there, you obey it. Live with that, instead of
trying to impose your bigoted agenda on us.


Better calm down before bashing on a staff member. I guess you did not read the underline of this thread.

The Bible is full of Sexism and Patriarchy, just as the Qu'ran is full of it - for a very simple reason. That's the way how people have lived 2000 years ago. They married childs, had sex with childs, and the father of a family was an omnipotent man who decided about live and death of his wife and his children. That is a scientifically proven fact.

I don't impose my opinion on you by the way, I'm not even interested in that.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 20:18

QUOTE
They were respected. Respectable expertise say that the incident was clearly provoked by the Iranians.

If that was the case the British security forces would have been in at the speed of a flame. This expertise you speak of is plucked out of the sky. You have an anti-Islam agenda. I conclude that this is the basis of your posts.


Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 20:28

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:18) *
If that was the case the British security forces would have been in at the speed of a flame. This expertise you speak of is plucked out of the sky. You have an anti-Islam agenda. I conclude that this is the basis of your posts.

Feel free to think whatsoever you want. The expertise I was talking about was backed up by pictures of both commercial and military sattelites by the way...
You portray me as an Islam-hater. I'm not, and even if I was, I wonder what that might have to do with a purebred fact about a given historic incident or Iran itself.

I'd rather say you have an anti-British agenda. I conclude that from every single post you've made.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 20:35

QUOTE
Feel free to think whatsoever you want. The expertise I was talking about was backed up by pictures of both commercial and military sattelites by the way...

The same sattelites used against the Iraqi Government before the invasion. The same sattelites used to convince the world that Sadaam was dangerous.

QUOTE
You portray me as an Islam-hater. I'm not, and even if I was, I wonder what that might have to do with a purebred fact about a given historic incident or Iran itself.

I have stated why I think it is related. Iran is an islamic state. You are anti-Islam. Therefore you have an anti-Islam agenda, in relation to Iran, as well as your oppostion to Muslims right to have the law they want, in their country.

QUOTE
I'd rather say you have an anti-British agenda. I conclude that from every single post you've made.

I have an anti-British involvement in Ireland agenda. And I am not ashamed of that, why would I be?
It's religious hatred I don't like.

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 20:40

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:35) *
I have stated why I think it is related. Iran is an islamic state. You are anti-Islam. Therefore you have an anti-Islam agenda, in relation to Iran, as well as your oppostion to Muslims right to have the law they want, in their country.

That is what I have written:
QUOTE
As a free man I shall obey the system but I would never respect it.


What so hard to understand about that? I don't deny another state's right to have own laws. But radical Muslims in Europe do neither obey nor respect our laws. As an Irishman you might have never witnessed nor noticed that.
How could I respect a law which is full of draconic punishments for minor offenses, which totally disregards a human's right on life or freedom of religion?

Posted by: JdB Jan 8 2008, 20:45

I will agree that the Bible is at times more like reading a horror story rather than a message of peace, but that surely can't cover all of the content in the book, just as I doubt that it does in the Qu'ran. I also think that if you decide to stay in a country however, you must respect their laws however crazy they may seem to you, if you do not agree with them, you shouldn't be in that country. We can't expect foreigners to respect our laws, when we have no respect for theirs.

I got a Report concerning this topic. While I agree that the reporter is right in saying that there is too much generalization in this topic (in this case the remark about the Bible being full text supporting sexual abuse), too many all-or-nothing views, I also feel that by glorifying organizations calling themselves "freedom fighters" that have committed bombings, beheadings and other crimes against innocent civilians, whatever the objective may be, he doesn't have that much of a right to claim someone else is doing something wrong by generalizing in his views. Discussions on Politics or the Military on the internet pretty much always end up in polarized sides, making a discussion pretty much senseless. In short, both parties could use a dose of common sense. To end with a quote from the Bible that does make sense:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 20:52

I might note something here as it appeared to have been the bone of contention: I never generalized something here. If I write "The Bible is full of (...)" it does not mean "The Bible only consists of (...)". I may politely as to bear that in mind.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 20:53

QUOTE
As a free man I shall obey the system but I would never respect it.

Yes.

QUOTE
Better calm down before bashing on a staff member. I guess you did not read the underline of this thread.


Perhaps you should lose your bigoted attitude. Post Reported. I won't discuss it here any longer.

QUOTE
The Bible is full of Sexism and Patriarchy, just as the Qu'ran is full of it - for a very simple reason. That's the way how people have lived 2000 years ago. They married childs, had sex with childs, and the father of a family was an omnipotent man who decided about live and death of his wife and his children. That is a scientifically proven fact.

Can I have relevant references to both the bible and whatever Surah. Please.

QUOTE
What so hard to understand about that? I don't deny another state's right to have own laws. But radical Muslims in Europe do neither obey nor respect our laws. As an Irishman you might have never witnessed nor noticed that.

I fully understand that, and agree to some extent. However, you have to distinguish
between extremeist scum and Sudanese public, who chose Sahria Law.

QUOTE
How could I respect a law which is full of draconic punishments for minor offenses, which totally disregards a human's right on life or freedom of religion?

In Ireland respect means obey, apologies tongue.gif
That was an error on my behalf. I do not agree with ANY religion infact, be it institutionalised
or not. I was born a Catholic (Democratic choice or what) and rejected it two years ago.


QUOTE
also feel that by glorifying organizations calling themselves "freedom fighters" that have committed bombings, beheadings and other crimes against innocent civilians, whatever the objective may be, he doesn't have that much of a right to claim someone else is doing something wrong by generalizing in his views.


Elaborate please. Where have I glorified bombings, beheadings, crimes against innocent civilians?





Posted by: JdB Jan 8 2008, 21:04

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 20:53) *
Elaborate please. Where have I glorified bombings, beheadings, crimes against innocent civilians?


In itself the IRA is a freedom fighting organization, although not supported by a majority of the population of Northern Ireland. It has tried to achieve freedom through bombings and murders aimed at civilians. Supporting the IRA means aligning yourself with (mass) murderers since no one recognized the IRA as freedom fighters, but as terrorist, since they started to bomb innocent people, with the exception for groups like Hamas, who are that same kind of terrorist organization, targeting civilians primarily. I can understand people who support political parties like Sinn Féin, since they used diplomacy instead of the constant violence that the IRA turned to.

Maybe Northern Ireland should be a part of the Republic of Ireland, but that is for the people of the UK, Northern Ireland and the ROI to decide, not the minority that the IRA and it's support base was/is by committing mass murder to bully people into getting their way.

Terrorist organizations, and extreme systems, such as national socialism and communism, are far too kindly remembered now a days by young people that like to mirror themselves on these mistakes in human evolution because it's supposed to make you look cool.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 21:10

QUOTE
n itself the IRA is a freedom fighting organization, although not supported by a majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

The rebels of 1916 never had a mandate either, they still made Ireland free. I believe it is a legitimate organization. However, don't get me wrong, I do not support armed struggle.

QUOTE
It has tried to achieve freedom through bombings and murders aimed at civilians.

False. What in the world would this achieve?

QUOTE
Supporting the IRA means aligning yourself with (mass) murderers since no one recognized the IRA as freedom fighters, but as terrorist, since they started to bomb innocent people, with the exception for groups like Hamas, who are that same kind of terrorist organization, targeting civilians primarily.

I am suprised that you have compared Hamas to the IRA, which is totally uncalled for. Hamas, firstly, is an Islamist movement, that supports the use of suicide bombing on buses. This is an irrational comparison. The IRA never deliberately targetted innocent civilians, to suggest such is wrong, and really makes no sense.

QUOTE
Maybe Northern Ireland should be a part of the Republic of Ireland, but that is for the people of the UK, Northern Ireland and the ROI to decide, not the minority that the IRA and it's support base was/is by committing mass murder to bully people into getting their way.

You are incorrect. It is up to the people of the six counties to decide. Not the UK. Or the incomplete republic of Ireland.
This really concludes just what you know on the situation, and that is because you speak of the ''Republic of Ireland'' which was created by rebels who NEVER had the support of the Irish people. Hypocrite?

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 21:13

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 21:10) *
I am suprised that you have compared Hamas to the IRA, which is totally uncalled for. Hamas, firstly, is an Islamist movement, that supports the use of suicide bombing on buses. This is an irrational comparison. The IRA never deliberately targetted innocent civilians, to suggest such is wrong, and really makes no sense.

Does that really make a difference as long as they shrugging accept innocent victims? Does it really make a difference for a dead if he was collateral damage of an IRA bombing or if he was intentionally killed by Hamas?

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 21:18

QUOTE
Does that really make a difference as long as they shrugging accept innocent victims? Does it really make a difference for a dead if he was collateral damage of an IRA bombing or if he was intentionally killed by Hamas?


Of course it does. It is regrettable, but I cannot answer unless I know what you are referring to in particullar. You're calling them mass murderers and that, but thats easy to do. Facts is what I am looking for. Really, you have to realise that there was a war going on, civilians always get killed in war. Warnings were issued for bombs in economic or otherwise target areas. Civilians WERE NOT and should NEVER be targetted. Especially at the time, I would say that the British people were the most motivated working class people ging iven the reign of Thatcher. I would'nt wish them being targetted at all. The IRA were no saints, but is there any army that is?

Posted by: JdB Jan 8 2008, 21:19

So while driving to the local army base or police station with their car packed with explosives, every time they parked the vehicle to buy an ice cream, and every time it accidentally exploded in a place full of civilians? Interesting...

In any court that would be numbered as pre-meditated murder, if you are fighting an enemy army, and a bullet that accidentally ends up hitting a civilian, THAT is an unfortunate civilian casualty caused by war. Parking a vehicle full of explosives in an area full of civilians and calling the police to be able to say that you did your best to have it disabled is pre-meditated murder.

Yes, civilians die in war, but what you're referring to is not a matter of stray gunfire, but of a means of spreading terror equal to having civilians in a war zone kneel in a ditch and shooting them in the back of the head on purpose rather than it being accidental.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 21:20

QUOTE
So while driving to the local army base or police station with their bomb, every time they parked the car to buy an icecream, and every time it accidentally exploded in a place full of civilians? Interesting...


I have no idea what you are referring to. Lets see some debate rather than clutching straws.

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 21:25

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 21:20) *
I have no idea what you are referring to. Lets see some debate rather than clutching straws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Go through the list. Pretty much of collateral damage if you ask me. As long as they did not care a straw whether they would kill innocent civilians or not during their attacks, are they no inch better than Hamas and all the rest of them.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 21:30

QUOTE
Go through the list. Pretty much of collateral damage if you ask me. As long as they did not care a straw whether they would kill innocent civilians or not during their attacks, are they no inch better than Hamas and all the rest of them.


As much as the British, American, German, and any other ''conventional'' army don't care when they drop a bomb and fly off?
It works both ways. Hamas are different to the IRA, totally. Live with it, rather than trying to tarnish.
There was war, civilians died. Regretable, and I hope it does'nt happen again. I don't want to see ANYONE killed.
Soldiers on both sides have families too.

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 8 2008, 21:34

QUOTE(Daithí @ Jan 8 2008, 21:30) *
It works both ways. Hamas are different to the IRA, totally. Live with it, rather than trying to tarnish.

If you insist... biggrin.gif I still fail to see a difference between an IRA and an Hamas bombing. The modus operandi may be a different one, the resulst however is just the same.

Posted by: Daithí Jan 8 2008, 21:36

QUOTE
If you insist... biggrin.gif I still fail to see a difference between an IRA and an Hamas bombing. The modus operandi may be a different one, the resulst however is just the same.


The result of a war is always the same. Innocents are killed.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Jan 9 2008, 14:57

ive just seen a vidio a new German submarine. Are germany actually aloud to comission submarines?

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 9 2008, 15:11

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Jan 9 2008, 14:57) *
ive just seen a vidio a new German submarine. Are germany actually aloud to comission submarines?

...Germany maintains the most modern conventional submarine fleet in the world. tongue.gif Why should we not be allowed to launch submarine vessels?

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Jan 9 2008, 15:16

i thought there might be some stuff left over from the war, like Japan, who i dont believe have any submarines

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 9 2008, 15:32

That is related to self-imposed restrictions in their constitution which makes JSDF a purebred self-defense-force without weapons capable of starting a war with them.
The Bundeswehr is allowed to maintain any kind of weapon system except weapons of mass destruction and anti-personal mines if they are regarded as necessary to fullfill the armed forces tasks.

The Navy has ten active and twelve mothballed submarines of classes 206 and 212A, the latter being considered as the most effective and most modern conventional submarine in the world.

Posted by: D@V£ Jan 10 2008, 18:20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7181658.stm

Seriously, that can't be Bush! It must be an Impostor! ohmy.gif

Posted by: pMASTER Jan 10 2008, 18:30

QUOTE(D@V£ @ Jan 10 2008, 18:20) *
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7181658.stm

Seriously, that can't be Bush! It must be an Impostor! ohmy.gif

He has nothing to lose anymore. In the end the world shall see him as Tony Blair's partner within the Middle East negotations team. How ridiculous.

Posted by: JdB Jan 10 2008, 18:53

The man who usually brings even more war to the Middle East now touches down to deliver peace, hurray!

He must be trying to save the legacy of his presidency as much as possible, because no one would take him seriously as a peace negotiator, he's caused too much conflicts himself.

Posted by: BigglesTrevor Jan 10 2008, 20:46

in 1000 years he will nothing but a blip in history.

Posted by: JdB Jan 10 2008, 21:03

QUOTE(BigglesTrevor @ Jan 10 2008, 20:46) *
in 1000 years he will nothing but a blip in history.


I guess pretty much is true for everyone, including most of the US presidents, after all, who can even remember more than a handful of the first 30 presidents?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)