Terrorism Alive and Well in Canada Two Soldiers Killed

Loke · Member Joined: May 13, 2013 Posts: 207

The part of this that sickens me the most, Was that Cpl. Cirillo was killed while on guard duty while carrying an unloaded rifle. Yes, he was issued a rifle, but no ammunition. Some how that makes sense to senior military officers. Yet another example of a hero killed by the stupidity of their commanders.
It reminds me of the Marine veteran that was teaching school in Reno, Nevada, that was killed last year by a student with a shotgun. Because Nevada doesn't allow a concealed weapon permit holder to carry a gun on school property, a decorated military veteran (who is more qualified to carry a weapon to defend his students from a terroristic attack?) was not allowed to protect himself and the students at the school from a punk kid who wanted some attention? I just can't find the logic in this.

Elvis

I couldnt agree more.

MacD

We won't allow fear turn this country into an armed camp and any politician who tries will find out Canadians won't support such a move. No they didn't have live ammo and nor should they have had or ever will. If can't understand why then you don't understand Canadian values. The nation was shocked by the events of last week precisely because of those values.

Elvis

I have to disagree MacD.......if you cant trust your constabulary and military with live ammo well you better change the job discription to the "unarmed forces"
tieing their hands behind their backs is just as bad as painting a big flouro orange target on them, the crims,thugs and rag headed terrorists dont give a shite about the rules and asking these guys to deal with them unarmed is simply not fair...just wait..one day very soon they will take govt to employment court for putting them in dangerous situation without tools to deal with it.......any civilian contractor could and would sue for millions and win
rant over

Pumpkinslinger

I think you need to take into consideration the other side's "values"...

Vince · Last edited by Vince on Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

Values are important, but so is the lives and well being of soldiers put on Guard Duty at places such as War Memorials, a duty that is purely ceremonial. As Punkin said...consider the values, or lack thereof, of those that would bring harm to those on Guard.

I have been in the situation where I carried a rifle, but no ammunition, as a guard...not good. I remember many many years ago, an Australian Infantry Battalion returned from Vietnam and exercised it's right to Freedom of the City (often extended to military units). Protestors were throwing red paint at the soldiers and a group made a move to throw paint on the Battalion Colours...a big mistake as they quickly learned. The order was given to Fix Bayonets! Nobody was injured, but it demonstrated the values of the soldiers.

Elvis

due consideration given..I value the life/well being of a copper or soldier well above that of a law breaking scumbag .
I value the safety of that same copper/soldier above any insecurity the koombuyah brigade may "feel" by having said persons carrying live rounds
I value the persons/places they are asked to protect from said scumbags far far above any percieved insecurities felt by others who should know better and indeed unless they have something to hide or are planning on lawbreaking these simple measures will have ZERO effect on Joe Public.
I mean come on how do you KNOW that the red coats standing at Lizzies front door ARENT locked n loaded right now??? and so what if they are???....If a soldier is going to be carrying a firearm without ammunition you might as well take it off them and issue a pitchfork instead..they would be safer.

Vince

We used to carry pick handles when on Guard.

1895ss

I agree with you Elvis... if you're going to have a firearm, while on guard, you might as well have ammunition... !! Only makes sense to have both or nothing at all...!

dhc4ever

Live ammo on a cerimonial guard?
Not happening in a commonwealth country without an act of parliment and a risk assessment/hand wringing session worthy of the UN at it most useless.
There is a destinct separation of powers between the civilian forces and military for a reason and it is generally only in times of disaster, war or olympic games/g20 type senerios that the military is equipped with ammo in the public domain. Possibly because the govt is worried about coups ( the romans started this, not allowing any legion into the area of Rome for this reason).
There is also the legal side of shooting someone, soldiers fighting in northern Ireland have been hung out to dry for shooting someone while on patrol, god help the poor digger in the middle of that legal/media shite fight if it happens on the peaceful streets of (insert name of western countries city of choice here).

Vince

Unfortunately Pete, you are right mate. I sincerely hope that it doesn't come down to a soldier, sailor or airman not being able to defend himself before someone decides there us a need for change.

Elvis

if a soldier took employer to employment court...well it could happen.
Im surprised a police officer hasnt done it over here.

MacD

Respect everyones opinion. I have carried arms in an official capacity both in public and while boarding vessels. I would never even consider shooting in a crowded downtown area. My own defence wouldn't justify the death of an innocent bystander.

This video is illustrative of the values I believe will make a better world. I grew up in Hamilton and it is a lunchbox city with a history of immigration from around the world.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada...-1.2816837

Bushmaster

In the case of the Canadian soldier. I doubt very much if it would have helped if he had ammunition. He was shot in the back by a sickened coward.

inthedark

MacD wrote:

In the Dark. A bad day for all of us. You are right, both were recent converts to Islam. However not all people who carry out acts of terror are Muslim and I am sure you aren't suggesting all Muslims are terrorists. Currently we are experiencing the fallout of a destabilized Middle East where the predominate faith is Islam. If this situation was occuring in the Far East it might be Hindu or Buddist radicals using terror and inciting people in our cities with mental health or other personal issues to carry out acts of terror.

The actions of a few don't reflect the values of the many.

You are absolutely right not all Muslims are terrorists nor any other faith. I am a Lutheran LCC (Missouri Synod for our American brothers and sisters) and I hate ANYONE who attacks my country and the western world nations who believe in Freedom and Justice. I hate to go Old Testament but sometimes I wonder what would the world be like if we sank to their level and committed terrorist acts on Muslims, Budhists, Hindus. But then we wouldn't be TRUE Christians would we.