Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At the risk of starting a flame war, I have no sympathy for those Protesters now. Infact, I think they've brought this on themselves.

Throwing Hand grenades, Nail bombs, Bricks, Roofing slates, Petrol bombs and shooting at the Police, and then crying "Oh! Oppression! We're being Oppressed!" when they move in to move you is not going to get anyone on your side...

Kiljoy I also support law and order.

But from what I have seen the protesters are not a bunch of thugs looking for a reason to attack the police

The interviews I have seen showed well educated middle aged protesters

With real concern about there country's future. In a perfect world they would wait for

An election but in a country like Ukraine were Elections results are Dubious to say the Least. Many of the protesters see there country becoming more and more autocratic.

And many would have Known what it was like to live in a country ruled by gangsters

It was called the Soviet union. unfortunately the police are in the middle and have to take Orders from the politicians whether there corrupt or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

At the risk of starting a flame war, I have no sympathy for those Protesters now. Infact, I think they've brought this on themselves.

Throwing Hand grenades, Nail bombs, Bricks, Roofing slates, Petrol bombs and shooting at the Police, and then crying "Oh! Oppression! We're being Oppressed!" when they move in to move you is not going to get anyone on your side...

...apart from the American Government and the EU, who seem content with backing extremist groups of late.

When you bring large groups of people together, particularly in a political crisis, emotions run high. When all political-legal means run their course and people feel there is no alternative then they will do the unthinkable. Those on the streets say they are struggling over the future development of the country - will it be a country based on the rule of law, or Russian-style oligarchy and closed interests? Anyone who has paid attention to what is going on in Russia can sympathize with the people in the Ukraine who want to get closer to Europe.

And let us remember the protests broke out after their President, Viktor Yanukovych's government rejected a far-reaching accord with the European Union in November 2013 in favor of stronger ties with Russia. Thousands of people, remember the videos, outraged that a long-standing aspiration for integration with Europe and their chances for pursuit of happiness, had been ditched overnight, poured into central Kiev for peaceful protests. They have occupied Independence Square, known as Maidan, ever since.

Up to this point, it has been pretty peaceful but I'd say some serious pressure has been ratcheted up on them by the government. They are reacting to that pressure rightly or wrongly.

Several developments - including violent police attacks on student protesters, severe new anti-protests laws, and the abduction and beating of opposition activists - have caused the demonstrations to spread and intensify. For many of these people, they are now less about Europe than about getting rid of a president they believe is clinging to power and serving the interests of his own close circle and Moscow. I've also read recently police snipers are shooting into the crowds.

With all due respect Killjoy, I think you are missing the big picture here. I for one wish them all the success, and hope it can be done peacefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...apart from the American Government and the EU, who seem content with backing extremist groups of late.

I wish we would have stayed out of it all. We seem to be on the wrong side more often than not. Like the Egypt thing. Why is the first revolution a good revolution, but the second revolution when the people are just as unhappy with the new government just a few months later is a bad one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://indavideo.hu/video/Pajzsok_moge_bujva_araszolnak_a_tuntetok

Ukraine - Kijev - protesters advancing in "phalanx" formation - taking shots from snipers.

Holy crap is that live ammo they're sniping with???

Edit:

Well.......If you ask me, writing angry letters, making phone calls, and putting up signs are perfectly normal ways of protesting a government or law you don't like. Gathering together in the streets, marching, chanting, even yelling and waving your arms real angry like are also normal ways to protest.

Getting into a pushing and shoving match with police, whacking some dudes with sticks, water hoses, that's not really normal but if people can agree to shake hands call it a day and go home before anybody gets badly hurt or killed, that's OK.

But if you've got protestors throwing firebombs, and people shooting them with sniper rifles, you're talking about a war. Oh and that also seems pretty INSANE to do in a modern civilized country. I would expect that kind of activity in Iraq or Syria or Libya or something but not the Ukraine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
Holy crap is that live ammo they're sniping with???

To be fair, all the people in these videos have been seen being shot in the leg, which is the correct Police procedure to follow.

Shoot to stop, not kill.

But from what I have seen the protesters are not a bunch of thugs looking for a reason to attack the police

The interviews I have seen showed well educated middle aged protesters

90% of the footage coming out of there is of civilians brandishing Police Shields, clubs, rifles, pistols and one even drove a truck into a Police Shield line at full speed.

What's even more disturbing, is the fact that 2 days ago, a Police officer was "taken prisoner", handcuffed to a stage while the opposition leaders made a speech, beaten by protesters and even had his eye gouged out while the crowd cheered, and no one batted an eye lid!

Now, the question remains exactly the same as when Syria kicked off; are these the sort of people we want to support or help?

Link to post
Share on other sites
there forums for that (hmm ,what would be the correct plural of "forum", "forae"?...never mind)

Forums is correct. :)

But you might like to know that the word antenna is used both for radio aerials and the spiky sensor organ of some insects. But in the former case the plural is antennas and in the latter, antennae? You didn't want to know that? Can't say I blame you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, all the people in these videos have been seen being shot in the leg, which is the correct Police procedure to follow.

Shoot to stop, not kill.

No, just no.

"Shoot to stop" means that you stop shooting when they're no longer a threat.

"Shoot to kill" means you stop shooting when they're dead.

The leg contains some MAJOR arteries.

Allow me to assure you that a leg shot which severs the femoral artery can be just as fatal as a bullet through the heart.

Lethal force is lethal force. You can't shoot somebody "a little bit".

Link to post
Share on other sites
So where would you rather shoot them?

First, like I said before, lethal force is lethal force.

The Israelis used to use .22LR "sniper rifles" as a "less lethal" rifle for wounding people. Those were too lethal, they killed lots of people on accident when they tried to "shoot to stop".

Shooting someone is a Boolean condition. You either shoot someone, or you do not shoot some one. Shooting someone regardless of where you hit them is lethal force.

Having said that, I think arm shots are likely more survivable than leg shots. The legs need LOTS of blood, the arms need less. Still a significant quantity, but less. But AGAIN, you can not shoot somebody a "little bit".

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, like I said before, lethal force is lethal force.

The Israelis used to use .22LR "sniper rifles" as a "less lethal" rifle for wounding people. Those were too lethal, they killed lots of people on accident when they tried to "shoot to stop".

Shooting someone is a Boolean condition. You either shoot someone, or you do not shoot some one. Shooting someone regardless of where you hit them is lethal force.

Having said that, I think arm shots are likely more survivable than leg shots. The legs need LOTS of blood, the arms need less. Still a significant quantity, but less. But AGAIN, you can not shoot somebody a "little bit".

Agree. AFAIK, no conventional munition can be relied upon to stop someone and definitiely not kill them. 'Shooting to stop' IS possible, but only if you use the right weapon and ammunition such as a 'riot rifle' and rubber bullets. The water cannon is another alternative, although even their use has resulted, on occasion, in blinding and maiming, and has probably resulted indirectly in death due to the person being knocked over and sustaining fatal head injuries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree. AFAIK, no conventional munition can be relied upon to stop someone and definitiely not kill them. 'Shooting to stop' IS possible, but only if you use the right weapon and ammunition such as a 'riot rifle' and rubber bullets. The water cannon is another alternative, although even their use has resulted, on occasion, in blinding and maiming, and has probably resulted indirectly in death due to the person being knocked over and sustaining fatal head injuries.

I watched an episode of future weapons where

An American company was developing a none lethal riot control device I think it used some Type of Microwave technology.

The Shows presenter Mac a ex navy seal only lasted a couple of minutes when they demonstrated the device on him. He reckoned there was no way any human could take the Discomfort for any prolonged period .they could set the Device to cover a crowd or pick out A single guy.

He Was advised to clear his bowls before the test. LoL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
So where would you rather shoot them?

This.

The water cannon is another alternative

No it is not.

"Shoot to stop" means that you stop shooting when they're no longer a threat.

"Shoot to kill" means you stop shooting when they're dead.

Yes, I agree, but nowhere in that video was there anyone shot repeatedly on the ground. The vast majority where in the leg, as you can see them clutching at.

You can't shoot somebody "a little bit"

Like TacBat said, where would you shoot them when operating under Shoot to stop?

While I think we had a good debate going here, I'd like to get off this subject now. It's far too close to home for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having said that, I think arm shots are likely more survivable than leg shots. But AGAIN, you can not shoot somebody a "little bit".

Arm shots are far more risky then a leg shot. Miss a few inches left or right of an arm shot and now you're hitting vital organs. Left of right a few inches on a leg shot and you end up with a clean miss. There are reasons for targeting the protesters in the manner that they did.

No, you can't shot someone a little bit. You either shoot them, or you don't. What you can do is determine where you are going to place your shots. It's far easier and takes less skill to attempt to put a bullet into the center of mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homer locked and unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...