11-27-2016, 11:33 PM
For someone who thinks riot control is not relevant you sure do like to write a lot about it. Unfortunately most of it is plain wrong and badly researched.
You mention the incident I referenced earlier as if it was a one off, it was only significant in its scale and the speed it spread across the entire city and into the surrounding towns. Firearms and pipe bombs are not unusual in riots in Northern Ireland and have been for the last 40 years.
Off the top of my head I can think of firearms being used during riots in the last few years in; London, Manchester, Ukraine, Kosovo and at least 3 incidents in your own country. None of them resulted in the kind of massacre you keep insisting would happen.
This comment;
"This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins)."
Is particularly far off the mark. In none of the incidents where the USMC were confronted by rioters in Afghanistan did they open fire into the crowd, even in incidents such as Darvishan where in addition to the rioting they were being shot at by the Taliban. Similarly UK Infantry did not open fire on rioting crowds in any of the riots they were involved in while in Southern Iraq, despite the fact that they too were being shot at by the Mahdi Army during the riots. The German Army did not open fire on rioters in Kosovo when they were shot at during the riots there a couple of years ago. Media reports and videos exist of so many instances where this happened you will easily find them if you choose to look.
As for the use of historical sources I would suggest that you stick to Roman ones, because you are flat out wrong if you think Norse commanders stood in the front rank through out the battle. Norse commanders and their bodyguard usually came forward when the battle was at a critical stage, either when victory was close or when the shield wall was starting to break. That is confirmed by multiple sources. One of the easiest ones to check for yourself is Stamford Bridge, the last large battle involving a Viking invasion in England. Although the King died (hit by an arrow, just like the Anglo-Saxon King who faced him would a few weeks later) the vast majority of the other senior leaders survived and were able to negotiate with King Harald after the battle. Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away.
You mention the incident I referenced earlier as if it was a one off, it was only significant in its scale and the speed it spread across the entire city and into the surrounding towns. Firearms and pipe bombs are not unusual in riots in Northern Ireland and have been for the last 40 years.
Off the top of my head I can think of firearms being used during riots in the last few years in; London, Manchester, Ukraine, Kosovo and at least 3 incidents in your own country. None of them resulted in the kind of massacre you keep insisting would happen.
This comment;
"This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins)."
Is particularly far off the mark. In none of the incidents where the USMC were confronted by rioters in Afghanistan did they open fire into the crowd, even in incidents such as Darvishan where in addition to the rioting they were being shot at by the Taliban. Similarly UK Infantry did not open fire on rioting crowds in any of the riots they were involved in while in Southern Iraq, despite the fact that they too were being shot at by the Mahdi Army during the riots. The German Army did not open fire on rioters in Kosovo when they were shot at during the riots there a couple of years ago. Media reports and videos exist of so many instances where this happened you will easily find them if you choose to look.
As for the use of historical sources I would suggest that you stick to Roman ones, because you are flat out wrong if you think Norse commanders stood in the front rank through out the battle. Norse commanders and their bodyguard usually came forward when the battle was at a critical stage, either when victory was close or when the shield wall was starting to break. That is confirmed by multiple sources. One of the easiest ones to check for yourself is Stamford Bridge, the last large battle involving a Viking invasion in England. Although the King died (hit by an arrow, just like the Anglo-Saxon King who faced him would a few weeks later) the vast majority of the other senior leaders survived and were able to negotiate with King Harald after the battle. Despite the overall army taking so many casualties that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle stated that the Norwegians had arrived in 300 ships but only 24 were needed to take the survivors away.
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
