I doubt that, tbh. Also: you're quite the patriot, aren't you? If someone has broken into my house and is pointing a gun at me asking for money, I'm not going to wait for them to shoot me. Calming them down might not do anything, I'd have no clue how to toy with his mind (and even if I did, how would I call the Police on him and get him out?), I don't know martial arts and I don't own a baseball (and throwing one at them would probably provoke them even more). I'd try to knock him out - if I killed him in the process, its his own fault. I'd make sure not to use the gun - not that they'd have one, since over here guns are very hard to obtain and most people do stuff like this with knives, which are far more easy to use against someone with no weapon at a close range.
Most of these drone controversies are largely overblown. Drones are mainly used in situations when they are targeting groups, compounds, storage areas, etc. When they go after the leaders, then they use special forces. The point of drones is to avoid sending living soldiers for low priority tasks.
This is not necessarily a drone strike, but it's similar. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-...command-killed-in-airstrike-iraq-says/6468240
I should add that negligence in acquiring information about the surroundings is not ok. Accidents happen, but they should never become habit.
anyone who thinks when they have a gun pointed at them they are going to sit back and reason is ignorant and likely never been in that situation. your body does not behave rationally in those situations unless you are trained for them. instinctively the fight or flight mechanism is going to kick in and if you are armed with a gun i guarantee that same mechanism is going to try to get you to use it before you have a chance to think about the construct of western morality. as far as comparing special forces its really a nonissue. the bundeswehr special forces are the best in the world because of two reasons, 1: they are the most poorly funded special forces of any 1st world nato nation and 2: they literally go to training in many countries to get the strengths of those countries particular training exercises. all the rest of it comes down to situational factors and prep time.
My 2 cents on this thread: Why are we debating/arguing over something we don't have control over? Either way; Supermax or Death Penalty, his life is pretty screwed so who cares. If you want a say on future cases like this, pursue a career in Law and Justice. Case Closed.
People do that all the time. Take the repealing of Human Rights happening in the UK at the moment: people are discussing it, protesting against it, saying they don't want it... at the end of the day, its down to the government to decide to go ahead with it or not. I agree with this one Or just be a civilian who can speak louder than other people around you. 'Ten people who speak are louder than ten thousand who are silent.' - Napoléon Bonaparte
Just going to point out here - due to the lengthy appeals processes involved for convicted Death Row felons, it is actually cheaper to give them a life sentence than the death penalty. Lawyers and legal fees are like some horribly imbalanced coin-sink for the economy. We're not "saving money" by putting anyone to death, and if that sounds backwards to you, welcome to the club. Sometimes I wonder if we'd be better of firing every lawyer in the country and hiring this guy instead.
Conversation about a topic is healthy. It's human nature to discuss current events and ones opinions on it. Yup, he's done for. I agree. Or as SoulPunisher said, just be loud. Look at ____ religion for instance. A great example of how if you are loud enough you can do anything.
Well, it really depends on the situation. HOWEVER, SAS, Spetnaz, or French Foreign Legion (somewhat this group).
The argument of "best special forces" is one I've heard a lot, and there is no correct answer. These men train to the extremes of the human body and mind, cross train with other agencies and armies from around the world, and the selection/training is constantly adapted based on other elite group's methods. Delta's selection is taken from the SAS, who model their ocean recon troop training on our SeALs. This is out of partial necessity, as task forces often mix and match teams to find the best shooters for a particular position. Task Force 88 used Delta, DEVGRU, ISA (google them), Rangers, and 24th STS operators. Task Force Sword was another one, using Delta, Rangers, and Canadian spec ops (who the SeAL commander of the unit called on most often). Short answer: The only thing different about them is country of service.
To some, yes. To others, no. It depends on who you ask. I love the United Kingdom (England, however... not so much) to some extent because of its amazing history and the fact that I live in it - I constantly say I hate it, but I'd never leave it unless something worse than Tories or UKIP happened to our government. If you love it to the point where you fail to see where the country fails and have some kind of 'nobody is better than us' view of the country (which you, to me, seem to display), I'd say there's something wrong with that. Aye, the United States is a superpower, it basically destroyed another one (the USSR), and is the only one left - but that doesn't mean they're better than everyone else.
I read your post.. We both have opinions. I believe seals are the best, and you believe SAS, the only thing that Matters is they are all hardcore SOB's
