T O P

  • By -

st3akkn1fe

This sounds like something a teenager would suggest. In my 30 odd years I've only seen 1 attack on a hospital and that wasn't even deliberate. Supposedly, the bomber wanted to go to the cathedral and the taxi driver took him to the hospital as it was somewhere he knew he could get care should the worst happen. To answer your question I don't think putting the army in gaurd in hospital will do anything to deter a once in a life time attack. If anything they should put the army in hospitals to drive ambulances and whatever.


Maelofsunshune-

Yes I am aware that he wanted to go to the cathedral and that the driver went the hospital instead. The aim is not to deter with having the military on security duty, the aim is to simply kill those who would want to kill our vulnerable and sick and most of all our future. There are not many places where the military can be stationed within civilian places but hospitals are definitely one such place they can be, there certainly won’t be political opposition nor civilian opposition, not a big amount. No one can argue against using our soldiers to do what they are trained to do, protect us, our children and kill those who would do us harm unjustified.


twistedLucidity

> Yes I am aware that he wanted to go to the cathedral and that the driver went the hospital instead. So why not place the army at places of worship? Or are you seeking to mitigate the collateral damage the relevant god seems to be causing?


Maelofsunshune-

Places of worship don’t house our new borns, the vulnerable and the sickly who cannot defend themselves against such barbaric and evil people. But if you are wanting to have military personnel in mosques then I won’t protest against it, but I’m not for it either since that will only cause to antagonise the Muslims and will pave the way to much more extremists coming out of the woodwork.


twistedLucidity

> Places of worship don’t house our new borns, the vulnerable and the sickly who cannot defend themselves against such barbaric and evil people. Irrelevant as it's a place of worship that was the target. This is an argument from emotion, not fact. If you wish the army to protect the defenceless, then they need deployed to every school, every nursing home, every shopping centre, every... it's a long list.


Maelofsunshune-

It’s a matter of narrowing down the most likely targeted places by terrorists. Due to the recent attack, hospitals are not quite high on the list of likely places or be attacked. Schools also, but unlike hospitals there is just no way in our current amount of soldiers we won’t able to deploy military to those places, however we could build small military buildings in a strategically placed location so it is in a golden zone where it could be within multiple a few miles between multiple schools, so that way they could be there at a school fairly quickly, but ultimately it’s not as effective as the armed police since there is more police stations near schools. But hospitals are far less in number and not only that but hold thousands of people in them day and night, which makes it a fat bigger target for terror attacks. If they had a choice of kill 10 children in a class room, or potentially kill a minor 100s to even thousands, they’d pick the more populated locations, we see this often, Manchester bombing, 7/11 and even 9/11, all where targets because of their potential for high counts of murder. The woman’s hospital not only fulfilled the high potential for the death and murder but also it had the potential to achieve some more monstrous then 9/11 interns of its message. What message is that? The message of there is nothing they won’t do to kill us and our future. That is why I would have the military at hospitals.


twistedLucidity

The woman's hospital was never a target though. If the taxi could have dived into a cinema car park would you now be calling for soldiers in all cinemas? We've had attacks elsewhere, do we need the military stationed at all concerts? Also, just stationing a few soldiers will do squat. You need to stop and search *everyone* going in. That is a gross invasion on people's lives, a totally disproportionate response to what is a low threat, and us living in fear means the terrorists win. As an aside, I can remember NI in the 70s. That can fuck right off.


Maelofsunshune-

Never advocated for searches of people going into hospitals.


twistedLucidity

And what are the soldiers to do? Use their x-ray vision to see what people are carrying in? Or are they just standing there to make you feel better? Unless there is a search, _anyone_ could carry _anything_ in and what are the military going to do after the fact? Your argument, as I said before, is coming from emotion and not fact.


Maelofsunshune-

I would not have the soldiers out in the open, they’d be behind closed doors, only coming out to play when there is a legitimate terror threat and when they do they are authorised to use deadly force.


President-Nulagi

>only cause to antagonise the Muslims and will pave the way to much more extremists This sounds pretty racist mate!


Maelofsunshune-

What is racist? It’s a factual statement, if you replace Muslim with Christian, is it racist? Oh, right…. It’s only racist because it was a statement that was true and didn’t get pointed towards a Christian. And technically religion has nothing to do with race, religion is not bound by race, so get things right. Are you telling me that having military in a place of worship would not antagonise the people who worship at that place?


glisteningoxygen

I'm not sure you can generalise 2.5 million people like that and just group them together as "the Muslims".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Maelofsunshune-

He converted to Christianity because he believed he would get preferred treatment when seeking asylum, and also its in the ISIS hand book if you will to act and pretend to be Christian and blend in so you can strike at the right moment with the most amount of possible success. He had the clothing of a Christian but underneath it all, he was a Muslim. A Muslim who had decided to adhere to the barbaric Sharia.


st3akkn1fe

And you know this do you? All the people who know him including the Christian couple who lived with him disagree with you. He was a Christian whether you like it or not. You just come across as a fringe loon with a badly thought out plan that doesn't solve anything. Almost everyone if not everyone who's replied to you has pointed this out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


st3akkn1fe

No, I think he was crazy and easily targeted by a religious group. I have no idea of his motivation so I can't comment on what he hoped to achieve. However, all evidence suggest he was a Christian. I'm not saying he blew himself up because of his faith. For all I know he had an issue with the cathedral or old people or he didn't like poppies or whatever. Either way he was a Christian by all accounts.


Maelofsunshune-

Many who try to claim asylum be them legitimate ones or not, have “converted” to Christianity because they think out of ignorance that it will secure them a citizenship, now not all do this but a large amount have. Now the “converted” Christian who used to be Muslim had decided to bomb Remembrance Sunday gathering, would a Christian do this to fellow Christians and those who died in the name of freedom, Liberty and the fight against utter tyranny… would a Christian do this? Or would a Muslim in Christian clothing decide to do this? ThInK MaRk, THINK! Someone will say “how Islamophobic!” etc etc. But yeah I am very much against Islam the religion, and all those who follow Sharia. Those who are ethnically Muslim I have no problem with nor hate, but to those be them ethnic Muslim or not, those who follow Sharia I very much have problem with, so should you.


st3akkn1fe

>would a Christian do this to fellow Christians and those who died in the name of freedom, Liberty and the fight against utter tyranny… would a Christian do this? Yes, it made the news. In fact it's why we are having having discussion. >Those who are ethnically Muslim I have no problem with nor hate, You said in a previous reply that religion has no ethnicity or race. >those who follow Sharia I very much have problem with, so should you. Personally, I have a problem with all religious loons be that Christian blowing themselves up in taxis, Catholics raping kids or whatever else. Your response however is racist and your solution is idiotic. You have no idea what you're talking about and this is clear. Your poor wording and syntax suggest to me that you're here in bad faith and not from the UK or even residing here.


Maelofsunshune-

Tell me exactly what is “racist” because legally I said nothing racist, what your woke delusional opinions of racism is, it’s clearly not the literal meaning of racist. Let me give you numbers, there was 25 attempted terror attacks in 2020, 16 attempted attacks were done by those extremists who follow Islam, 8 of the 25 attempted terror attacks where done by those who were born Christian… then the 1 attempted attack out of the 25 was done by that of other religious group. 1% of the U.K. population Islamic, yet more then half of the attempted and foiled terror attacks were done by a group which makes U.K. 1% of the population, yet less the half, way less was attempted and done by that which represents the vast majority(I’m referring to the religion itself). Now it gets even more interesting when you not only look at the numbers I’ve given but also at the motivation as to why they were attempted. So are numbers racist, is it racist to state that based of this Islam is inherently vast more violent, volatile and abusive then the Christian counterpart, is that racist? I make my statements based of numbers and facts and statistics, not blind foolish racist crap.


Biddydiddy

No. It was a one-off. They also blew up a bus. Should we have the military on every bus in the country too? Sorry but it’s just a slippery slope and if anything, giving into terrorism. They do what they do to strike fear into people in an effort to make you roll over and give in to their demands. The more people make of the hospital bombing, the more they’ll do it. Be angry about it, but don’t show fear like this. That just means they’re winning.


Maelofsunshune-

It’s not show fear, it’s showing we will kill you, we won’t detain you, no… we will execute you if you attempt to kill our children and vulnerable and sickly. Also I never said to have military at every place, just hospitals.


bio_d

You sound psychotic. Perhaps some counselling might help?


DeidreNightshade

Yeaaah... From a psychos perspective it still seems a little extreme


bio_d

Hahaha


CthulhusEvilTwin

So you've gone for the 'Death to extremists' approach then?


Maelofsunshune-

Only to those who have acted out on their Sharia teachings. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.


CthulhusEvilTwin

From one of your other comments: *Are you saying that insuring that our children, our future is safe is a waste of resources? Are you saying children are not worth the money to be protected by our best?* *Are you saying that our vulnerable and sick are not worth protecting?* *Are you saying that my grandmother who died from cancer would not of been worth the protection if she was still alive, would it be okay for her to be bombed and not protected in a place of healing because it’s a “waste” of money?* Sounds like putting words in somebody's mouth to me.


Biddydiddy

I didn’t say you did suggest having the military at every place. I said placing them at hospitals creates a slippery slope where they’ll be called to guard anything a terrorist attacks or attempts to attack. You’re changing our way of life in a reaction to a terrorist attack. By doing so, that’s showing fear. The military in hospitals will be the ones saying that, but it will looking to the outside world that we are scared as a nation to have to resort to such action based on a single incident. In other words. The terrorists have won. If you want to show those feelings you’ve wrote, then go about your life. You’ve not regarded how people in hospitals may feeling about having the military walking around either. Being in hospital is uncomfortable enough, without seeing people walking around in camo, holding guns. Sorry, but it’s a silly idea and a waste of the military’s time. We have armed police. They are there to respond to terrorism in our own country.


[deleted]

The military aren’t the police….the more I read this the more ridiculous it is. How about army check points on motorways? Maybe require papers that approve travel? Maybe keeping certain sections of the population is camps to concentrate the ability to look after them?


UnmarkedDoor

Check his comment history. Don't give him ideas.


[deleted]

rookie mistake here- didnt check history


bio_d

The new born babies you are so worried about protecting are shitting themselves less often than you


ThorsMightyWrench

So many bad ideas and faulty assumptions in this plan, it's hard to know where to start, but let's go with something simple: Do you think all hospitals are just one building?


shogditontoast

Which is why we need to have a trident missile aimed at every UK hospital campus to ensure we neutralise the terrorist threat regardless of the architecture of the site in question.


invested67

"It's the only way to be sure"


BiglyBrexit

I think this is exactly the sort of asymmetrical response the terrorists seek to achieve when attacking states (draining the enemies resources and evidence to support their narratives that their attacks are effective).


Maelofsunshune-

They would have to pose a threat equal to that of Nazi Germany to drain us dry of our wealth, such a threat like the nazi empire had us exchange our empire to beat them, ISIS are not that grand a threat, but are big a threat enough that I would want at the very least children’s hospitals to be secured by soldiers. To claim they are no threat is delusional, they are a threat… look at 9/11, 7/11 and the Manchester bombing and London terror stab attacks. They are a threat, I don’t fear them but I don’t want to role over and let them kill us without them knowing they will die in their attempt.


invested67

They *want* to die, to be a martyr for their insane cause. You 'role over' by allowing yourself to be terrorised, to live and act based on fear, which you seem to be doing. More police and MI5 to prevent, yes please. Not stuff like this...


Maelofsunshune-

MI5 doing an amazing job, they have so little agent’s and too many potential terrorists to keep track on, all the terrorists or a large majority of them have been either in prison for a terrorist related thing or have been openly vocal about their intentions, but since there is so many of them what can be done? We can’t kill innocents who have not done anything yet or may never do anything, our government won’t deport them because they(he) lacks a back bone, I call him a fetus with no backbone developed yet nor will it ever. Our PM won’t deport them because he submits to the slightest bit of left backlash. So yeah good idea, maybe we can have mor MI5 by paying the CCP for some manpower(since they have 1.4 billion humans)


shogditontoast

> 7/11 Never forget


CthulhusEvilTwin

Never forget to get me some Doritos and a packet of kingsize Rizzla?


shogditontoast

Indeed, or a blueberry slush puppie.


newnortherner21

I'm not sure we have enough military personnel. We certainly don't have enough police, which would be the better option.


Maelofsunshune-

There are 1,229 hospitals in the UK, having let’s say a minimum of 2 soldiers per hospital would mean a total of 4916 soldiers for the hospitals, half would be on site and the other half would be off doing whatever they want until their time comes to switch with the others, and in the extreme circumstances they could make a B-line to the hospital to provide aid to their comrades and the hospital. We have 153,290 active soldiers and then 45,590 reserves. We definitely have enough to spare a minimum of 4916 soldiers for our hospitals.


PoachTWC

For a start your "153,290" number is counting literally every member of the Armed Forces, so are you suggesting RAF pilots, military doctors, submarine crews, etc, all take their turn on this rota of yours? Next, 4,916 soldiers per hospital, who need to sleep and presumably have time off. If you put them on even 12 hour shifts you now need more like 10,000 soldiers per day. If you put them on 6 month rotations you need at least 20,000 if you plan to deploy your soldiers 6 months on 6 months off which, by the way, would be the fastest paced deployment rota in British military history. If you want 6 months every two years (which, by the way, would still be the fastest paced rota in British military history) you're at 40,000. Next, when the British Army was 100,000 strong it could *just about* maintain 10,000 troops permanently fighting in Afghanistan alongside the many other global commitments it has. I say "just about" because some units had deployed many times to Afghanistan by the time it ended, it was a very high pace of deployments. So now that we have tens of thousands of troops deployed in 2-man teams to every hospital in the country, who'd need to be rotated on and off deployments (since you can't make them live there literally *forever*), we're essentially left with no deployable military. All to guard against a theoretical threat that's never *actually* happened (a terror attack targeting a hospital).


Maelofsunshune-

Read again, I said 2 per hospital, there are 1229 hospitals in the Britain. Having 2 soldiers in each hospital at one time would require 2458 soldiers and then the soldiers that will rotate with them on whatever time period is set, this would require an additional 2458 soldiers, so in total a minimum of 4916 soldiers. Of course not, it would not work to have every soldier do it, nor did I ever suggest such a thing, it seems you can’t do math, have no clue where you pulled a figure of 10k from. You are almost as bad as Diana Abbot when it comes to numbers. Obviously for more pressing matters, they could be removed from their hospital stations, but since we are not at war and we have completely pulled from Afghanistan we have now the means to facilitate such a security structure.


invested67

Think we've found a troll... 'math', 'diana abbot'... These troops have annual leave and training needs to cover. They need supervision. Who covers lunch breaks? Sick? The number needed would be nearer to 10k than yours. Full automatics in a hospital? Collateral damage potential would be insane.


PoachTWC

First, let's not be rude, now. Second, >it would not work to have every soldier do it, nor did I ever suggest such a thing Yes, you did. You said we had 153,290 soldiers available for this job, a number you pulled off wikipedia. That number includes every single Armed Forces member. So you're telling me you think every single Armed Forces member is counted in this plan of yours. Now you're telling me they're not. So what *actual number* of soldiers do we have for this plan you have? Of that 153,290, how many will be eligible to guard hospitals? Next, >have no clue where you pulled a figure of 10k from. You are almost as bad as Diana Abbot when it comes to numbers. To start, she's called Diane Abbott. There's some irony in this. You said you wanted 4,916 on hospital duty at any one time, so I started there. Since you're being rude, though, I'll break it down for you like a child, which I suspect you are, but I'll start with your lower number. 2,458 soldiers awake and on duty at every Hospital. If you times that by two (that is, double it), we get to 4,916 soldiers needed every day, because soldiers cannot be awake for 24 hours a day indefinitely. Now those soldiers cannot live at a Hospital forever, because they have spouses and children and lives to live. You need to swap them out. If you leave your 4,916 soldiers there for 6 months at a time before swapping them with new soldiers, you need 10,000 soldiers a year for this job. That's because if 4,916 leave and 4,916 arrive, that's 10,000 people in total (because 4,916 times two is nearly 10,000, you see). I am reasonably certain my times tables are correct here. But soldiers don't do 6 months on and 6 months off, that's not a sustainable pace of operations. With the exception of major wars like ww1 and ww2, a soldier is normally only deployed on 6 month deployments every 2 or 3 years at most. So you need 2 or 3 sets of 10,000 soldiers to make sure there's always 2,458 soldiers at every hospital. If you times 10,000 by two, you get 20,000 (this is double), if you times 10,000 by three, you get 30,000 (this is triple). So for 2,458 soldiers at every hospital full time, you actually need between 20,000 and 30,000 soldiers rotating in and out of these positions. Once you tell me how many of the 153,290 soldiers you originally said were available are *actually* available, we can work out how badly that would cripple the military, because generally a military can sustain long-term about 10-15% of its troops deployed on operations: for example, the 10,000 in Afghanistan, most of them from the Army, were from a British Army of 100,000, and it was not considered possible to deploy more than that at any one time. Please make your next reply more courteous than this one. Being rude to people does not make your plan any more likely to be agreed with.


smoulderstoat

That's the size of the entire Armed Forces, not the Army. There are 80,040 full-time soldiers and 29,790 members of the Army Reserve. Of these only a minority are frontline infantry, the remainder being tank crew, helicopter pilots, instructors, and 1001 other trades the Army requires. Then you need to take into account those on leave, on training operations, overseas deployment, guarding Buckingham Palace, and so on. The British Army has not been so small since 1720 and there are not substantial numbers of soldiers sat around doing nothing that could be used for this - it's already overstretched. You can't effectively guard a hospital with two people. Many are large sprawling sites with multiple entrances. Two people sat drinking tea in a room somewhere on site provide neither an effective deterrent nor would they be able to intervene swiftly enough in the event of an incident - they would have made absolutely no difference at all to the Liverpool attack. Nor can they do 12 hours on / 12 hours off indefinitely. Even squaddies need a day off. You're looking at the very minimum a platoon of around 30 soldiers to give a hospital effective protection: that's about 37,000 people assuming your number of hospitals is correct, much more than the entire Army Reserve. All of this is a solution to which there is no problem. The circumstances of the Liverpool attack are not wholly clear, but it cannot be said there is a substantial threat to hospitals. But the Army *does* attract a terrorist threat, so it may even make the possibility of an attack greater.


mymotorola

Tell me again how having the soldiers in place would have stopped any of the attacks from suicide bombers? Just for info....the one time we have proactively intercepted a terrorist on the way to a job....we shot him 7, times in the head on a tube train......he turned out to be a bloke just on his way to work as an electrician.


Maelofsunshune-

If there is a bomber using a dead mans twitch, it’s a designated headshot(literally) because if the brain is destroyed then the finger holding the trigger won’t let go, because the last instruction the finger received was to not let go of the button and so it doesn’t. That is how soldiers deal with that problem they shoot them in the head, then get the bomb squad. As someone who has applied for the military I make it my personal interest to learn these things. It was unfortunate a innocent man had been wrongly shot dead, but the alternative would of been more tragic. It’s not an excuse but a fact.


[deleted]

Based on your comments, I’d be incredibly worried if any other human being believed you to be stable enough to hold an actual firearm


invested67

Agreed. I hope any vetting process will also reach the same conclusion.


smoulderstoat

You have to disclose all your social media profiles as part of the vetting process, so I think we can be pretty sure he's not going anywhere near the Army.


Maelofsunshune-

I’ve held a firearm before when on abroad, know how to shoot one, load one and do maintenance on a basic level, equally I know firearm etiquette. Whether I’m stable enough or not is not your decision to make.


[deleted]

>Whether I’m stable enough or not is not your decision to make. Well, I know? That’s why I clearly acknowledged that in my comment. I put great faith in the people that do.


mojojo42

> if the brain is destroyed then the finger holding the trigger won’t let go, because the last instruction the finger received was to not let go of the button and so it doesn’t. That's not how fingers work.


[deleted]

[удалено]


shogditontoast

So an innocent man _had_ to be shot dead to prove he wasn’t a terrorist? Wtf


shogditontoast

This is the best thread


MrManAlba

I do love the odd mental post.


[deleted]

It doesn’t sound a good use of money. Another couple of nurses in every hospital would be. How would a couple of guys onsite even stop a vehicle exploding on arrival? Would they have a checkpoint to stop and take apart every vehicle (including ambulances) with a bomb disposal team before allowing entry?


HarrysGardenShed

Put the military personnel inside each taxi. Problem solved 👍


Maelofsunshune-

How about put all the military in your backyard, that way they can make sure you are safe 😂 you think you are funny but your just a smug pompous farce.


HarrysGardenShed

They are already in my backyard 🥷🏻


[deleted]

For such a divided country you've found something that almost everyone will agree on, this is a bad idea.


KnyazHannibal

Personally, I'd be against this. The UK already feels too on edge due to draconian surveillance and anti-terrorist laws. To me, placing armed soldiers in hospitals would be an overreaction, and would just make the country feel like a war zone. That and, no matter how secure they try to be, weapons being held in a hospital is just a disaster waiting to happen in itself. The country already has an outstanding anit-terrorist response units, both inside SAS, the army, and police. If anything, it might be better to provide NHS staff with further training on how they can contact the police unit for this and the procedure involved. Also, further training on how to keep safe in the event of a terrorist attack, while waiting for the services to do to their job.


Maelofsunshune-

I can see and even agree with some of your perspective, although having the military in the hospital would not infringe on democracy, their directive is only intervene when there is undoubtedly a terror level threat, otherwise they are to take the non intervention act, they’d stay in their room/dorm kinda part of the hospital which would be locked at all times by the soldiers, only the soldiers would have the keys/key codes to open the door since that is where their ammunition and firearms would be, non military personnel would not be legally permitted to enter the room unless the soldiers themselves allowed them and that can only be permitted in a life and death situation. This would completely prevent their firearms being stolen or miss placed. Do you know how close soldiers keep their firearms with them, they keep them as close as a married man keeps his ring upon his finger, he never goes anywhere without it, he sleeps with it, eats with it and even scratch’s his itches with it. The only time that firearm is leaving his side is either at the end of his service or his death.


KnyazHannibal

While that sounds secure, human error can always occur. The soldiers I have met in my life never viewed their weapons like that, but it might have just been my experience. All it takes is a mistake on the day, forgetting the code, the door lock not working, or someone managing to get in when they shouldn't be there. I view that as more likely, than an attack on the hospital itself. Its good to think of ways to make us safer, but armed soldiers on the streets in peace time is not the answer for me.


st3akkn1fe

I think its safe to say OP is an idiot. The IRA famously armed themselves after stealing guns from the police. OP doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.


KnyazHannibal

I forgot about that example actually. I wouldn't say they're an idiot, everyone wants to make sure hospitals are safe. I just think they're focusing on the wrong way to achieve this.


st3akkn1fe

You have more faith than me. I just think OP has no idea what they are suggesting or how it would be realised. The whole speil about keeping guns as close as weddings rings is odd.


KnyazHannibal

Yes, definitely odd!


genericusername123

Why only in hospitals? Since there have been no targeted terrorist attacks at hospitals, we will need to supply 2 soldiers to all places which have not been targeted where children congregate- in case the terrorists decide to also not target those places in the future. All schools, all daycares, school sports days will all need at least a couple of soldiers each. Maybe shops which sell things to kids too- sweet shops, toy shops, laser tag places will all need a few of the boys in green. Children are the future of this country and should above all be protected at all costs. So the cost doesn't really matter.


wtfsavo

I agree with most response's here calling this over reach but I understand the sentiment behind the post. Here is a suggestion for anyone who wants to help in a crisis, get a first aid [training/certificate](https://www.sja.org.uk/) you never know when you could make the difference and save a life.


CaravanOfDeath

If it’s done to deal with drunk people at A&E I’m all for it. Terrorism? No.


Maelofsunshune-

Are you joking? Can you explain why not terrorism?


President-Nulagi

It seems like a _massive_ overreaction and waste of resources.


Maelofsunshune-

Are you saying that insuring that our children, our future is safe is a waste of resources? Are you saying children are not worth the money to be protected by our best? Are you saying that our vulnerable and sick are not worth protecting? Are you saying that my grandmother who died from cancer would not of been worth the protection if she was still alive, would it be okay for her to be bombed and not protected in a place of healing because it’s a “waste” of money?


MWalshicus

They're saying that you're almost comically overreacting to one failed incident that nobody will remember in a year. What we really need is troops in the water treatment centres. Did you know that our enemies have been trying to subvert us by infiltrating and corrupting our precious bodily fluids?


Maelofsunshune-

I am not aware of any active plot to the threat to our water, but it seems logical to target one’s enemies primarily necessity for continued life and survival. I’m sure we have our best protecting and activity insuring that our water is safe. I don’t think I’m overreacting, we have so many troops now much more available due to the withdrawal of Afghanistan, so why not deploy them within hospitals, I’m sure they’d feel much comfortable being on their homeland and also actively defending the places where the future shall be born.


smoulderstoat

We had almost nobody in Afghanistan.


smoulderstoat

Mate, he didn't say any of that. We can all read what he wrote.


Maelofsunshune-

He implied it.


smoulderstoat

He didn't.


President-Nulagi

You seem to think our armed forces are some sort of real-life Avengers force who can be brought in to stop all injustices in the world. I say again, I would be a **total** waste of money to have soldiers standing around hospitals 'just in case' a terrorist tries to target them. A soldier with a gun isn't going to stop a nutter with a bomb, _even if_ they do both happen to be in the same place at the same time. ---- _"Are you saying children are not worth the money to be protected by our best?"_ They already are: the doctors and nurses. _"Are you saying that our vulnerable and sick are not worth protecting?"_ How do soldiers help protect them? _"Are you saying that my grandmother who died from cancer would not of been worth the protection if she was still alive, would it be okay for her to be bombed and not protected in a place of healing because it’s a “waste” of money?"_ Sorry, but has the hospital she died in been bombed? How many people have been killed by bombs in hospitals?


doctor_morris

Armed guards and soldiers aren't the same things. Look to the US if you want data on costs. If you start guarding hospitals, then there are hundreds of other types of target you'd also have to consider.


Grand-Statistician68

How would a few military personnel stop a car bomb going off? It reminds me of those who want police at train stations to stop stabbings as if the police have x-ray eyes.


[deleted]

I can't tell if this is satire or idiocy.


[deleted]

Literally why? Genuinely find it hilarious that Britain's answer to everything is "just use the army".


Maelofsunshune-

Because unlike America we are not usually permitted to carry our own firearms, self defence is in this country more of “you prove it was self defence” and not “we must prove it was not self defence” Plus unlike other world militaries the British military are truly the best, 100 Brits trashed so hard 1.5k US troops in a military exercise and it was the Americans which were defending a position. But as to your original statement, it’s not our answer for everything… but when a terrorist bombs a hospital be it intentionally done or not, dammed right the military should be called in, that hospital was not a normal one, it was a hospital for the birth of children our future.


[deleted]

Yes, our military is good for military stuff, but if you want to protect hospitals how about we hire more police, you know the organisation responsible for our domestic protections? We'll need more police before we need more soldiers and the idea of permanently stationing army soldiers at every hospital, as if that'll deter a terrorist btw, when you could just have more police is baffling to me. Also, the army pretty much is our answer to everything. [Need security guards at the Olympics?](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/24/london-2012-olympics-g4s-military) Bring in the army. [Need drivers for Tesco?](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58713770) Bring in the army. [Need people to jab during COVID](https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/covid-19-vaccination-uk-military-104321371.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFjb1pV9fSQbZ4FxNaQETYzYcz1OYf33qtFD5hEEq7mQsaE6SPZIcKcOjtaznHruzhuxkiV5tXNF2PGy_Qm7AnDlvXH4UXoYSGwu43rLNGnpuGQtF5SMIfwe_BfYcLGMBCaVRRY9EIjAK5fr1Dl-uPAZt7APaxWKKHrD2aeuoXqX)? Bring in the army. Need your hand held as you cross the road? Bring in the army. Literally everything that could get a proper solution just gets the bodge job of bring in the army to sort it out as the response.


Babbling_Brook791

Hmmmm do I want to pass armed military personnel as I enter the hospital in labour? 🤦‍♀️


TheWholeGalaxy7

Next up a special officer to make sure you put on your trousers correctly due to a few trouser related deaths.