# Trained killers?



## Sh0rtbUs (1 Feb 2004)

My family isnt exactly thrilled about my career choice, and are making a point of discouraging me (note that it isnt working).

Last sunday my grandfather called my house looking for my mom, and my answer was "they‘re at church". he then replied "Why arent you there? OH right! You‘re trainign to be a killer, church aint for you."

This didnt bother me as it‘s become the norm to disregard half the bs my grandfather dishes out throughout the family.

But then i thought, to what extent is he right? I can hardly say that Canadian Forces are trained cold blooded killers, and I feel the Canadian Forces are trained to make a difference for the better, preparing for the worst case scenarios. But I was wondering what some of you thought about this, and what you‘re personal opinions were on the subject?

Myself, I wouldn‘t hesitate a second to take someone‘s life if mine or my buddies were threatened, and I feel thats the right thing to do. But then there‘s the argument of whether its moral to place yourself in that position where you‘re forced to make the choice. 

I pretty much said enough to him to get him off my back, but I‘d love to hear what others felt about it.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (1 Feb 2004)

my thinking is soldiers aren‘t trained to kill for there enjoyment...there trained that way to go out and make a positive difference on the world.  It is odd that somehow through the use of violence we can achieve something good. Though you may be forced to kill at some point in your career i think you‘d be killing for many right reasons...killing to save lives...its an odd concept but someone has to protect this country and its that concept thats going to see this country safe *nods*


----------



## nULL (1 Feb 2004)

Then again, I‘m sure that many, many potential chefs/weapon techs/infanteers struggled with the same moral dilema, and in the end turned out to have never had to kill anyone in their careers. why worry about it now? i‘d think that as long as you aren‘t _against_ the thought of killing anyone, you shouldn‘t worry about how you‘d feel _after_ in a hypothetical scenario.


----------



## Jungle (1 Feb 2004)

Maybe you should have your grandfather read this article:
Canadians making lives safer, says Kabul shopkeeper
Afghan man fears withdrawal of foreign troops 
By Les Perreaux / The Canadian Press 

Kabul - Despite a shopfront peppered with shrapnel and other reminders of a suicide bombing here, Attiqullah Baghan remains convinced that Canadian troops make his neighbourhood safer. 

The bomb, aimed at Canadian soldiers, killed one of them and narrowly missed Baghan as he worked in his shop 15 metres away. Baghan insists the Canadian soldiers bring security, even if they also draw violence at times. 

"It‘s because the people who did this bombing: the Taliban, the warlords, whoever; they are the same people who destroyed my country," Baghan said Friday as he surveyed two-dozen shrapnel holes in his tin door. 

"Canadians, they had no part in destroying my country. That‘s why I want them here. If they go, it will all start over again." 

As well as killing Cpl. Jamie Murphy and injuring three other Canadian soldiers, Tuesday‘s bombing left one Afghan dead and nine injured. NATO and Afghan authorities are investigating the attack, along with another that killed a British soldier a day later. 

Since the deaths, some Canadian soldiers have wondered if their mission to bring peace to the country is worth the cost in lives. 

Local merchants, workers and pedestrians gathered around Baghan‘s front stoop, not far from where the bomber stood. They nodded in agreement as he described how life has improved since the NATO contingent, led by Canada‘s 2,000 troops, arrived in the summer. 

For Afghans, the recent violence barely registers compared to the previous two decades of civil war and Taliban rule. 

"Before the Canadians were here, we couldn‘t pass along this road for the robbery and thievery," said Abdul Rassool, another area shopkeeper. 

"During the civil war, you would never start a business. Before the Canadians were here, we got rocket attacks from the same bunch. It‘s much better nowadays, even with a bomb attack." 

A couple years ago, Baghan was a refugee in Pakistan who fed his family by driving a taxi. He returned after the fall of the Taliban and now has a thriving concrete business, fuelled by a construction boom that came with rebuilding in the relative peace of the capital, Kabul. 

On Tuesday, Baghan, 32, began his day like most others, opening his shop shortly after 8 a.m. He followed his morning ritual, standing on the front stoop of his shop, watching traffic go by. 

A customer arrived just as the Canadian vehicles approached his part of Darlaman Street, known to the military as Green Road. Baghan noticed the two Canadian vehicles and went to the rear of his shop to negotiate prices with the client just as the bomb went off. 

Baghan ran out to see a haze of smoke, a blackened Canadian jeep and about a dozen injured people wandering around. Baghan noted the calm of the Canadian troops, although he did not dare approach to offer help. 

"They didn‘t have any extreme reaction," Baghan said. "They calmly brought their friends to the back vehicle."


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2004)

You may ask your grandfather if he had a rabid dog in his backyard, whether he would opt of peaceful co-existance or have the dog put down?  It seems your grandfather has a very naieve view of the world.  There really are some monsterous people out there, and not everyone enjoys the civil liberties that we enjoy here in Canada.

GW


----------



## LilMissChicky (1 Feb 2004)

Or maybe that he is so used to his freedom and takes it for granted, while not even bothering to remember where THAT freedom comes from and who‘s defending and protecting it!


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (1 Feb 2004)

well, he certainly is naive. Im in no way worrying about this, as im aware the likelyhood of me having to kill someone isnt great. So do you think that a trade-off with violence for peace is basically what a soldier trains for? And do you think the militaries judgement of when to do this trade-off is on the mark?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2004)

Almost everyone has heard of that Editorial written a long time ago in New York "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".  Well this morning the Ottawa Sun (1 Feb 2004) published a similar editorial:  (Perhaps this is some help)

Editorial  in Ottawa Sun, 1 February 2004


"*The day Cpl. Murphy died*

Cpl. Jamie Murphy died Tuesday at the hands of a suicide bomber on the filthy streets of a decimated city torn to shreds by a generation of war. Half a world away in Conception Harbour, Nfld., his grieving mother Alice was haunted by a question. 

Why, she asked, did her boy have to die in a country like Afghanistan whose people "don‘t want peace or even know what it means?" Why, indeed. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin said the question, while understandable, was "one I wish she didn‘t have to ask." Well, she did ask, and from a grateful nation she is owed an answer. 

Dear Alice: 

Most of us never got to meet Jamie, by all accounts a fine soldier, a good friend and partner and a devoted, loving son. 

You‘d know far better than us what caused him to don a soldier‘s uniform, but we suspect Jamie was like so many young men and women drawn by an irresistible urge to serve their country. 

Not all of us hear that call of duty, fewer still are drawn to act upon it. But Jamie did. 

Your son served this country even though it meant leaving the comforts of home and enduring a prolonged separation from those he loved. 

His calling took him to a world utterly shattered by war, where hatred is drenched in blood and where people‘s hopes and dreams have been reduced to dust along with their homes. 

Alice, we‘ll never know for sure, but we‘d bet Jamie saw that he was making a difference in Afghanistan. He‘d see it in the eyes of strangers who, for the first time in a generation, were beginning to see hope for peace in their homeland. He‘d see it in the smile of a child going to school for the first time or in the face of a mother who had begun to feel the warm embrace of security for her family, thanks largely to a military presence comprised of Jamie and his colleagues. 

This week, as he approached the end of that posting, he died -- tragically, violently, under the most awful circumstances. 

Alice, we cannot begin to find the words sufficient to console you as your family grieves its terrible loss, except to say that Jamie died a hero. No, he didn‘t die while plunging into a river to save a drowning child or pulling someone from a raging house fire. 

But he died doing what he knew was right -- trying to restore civility and dignity to a people who had long lost both. He did it even though they were complete strangers to him and even though there were terrible risks from those who saw him as an enemy of tyranny and terrorism. 

Alice, he died ... cruelly and incomprehensibly. But heroically too. 

Pull the boys out? Bring them all home? You‘re right to ask, Alice. But we believe the Afghan people do want peace, they do know what it means, and we suspect Jamie believed that more than most of us because he saw it with his own eyes. 

Alice, soldiers like Jamie are the last hope of the people of Afghanistan. Jamie died, but his death was not in vain. "


----------



## Korus (1 Feb 2004)

Thanks for posting that...


----------



## nbk (1 Feb 2004)

Sh0rtbUs: Your parents sound like mine...just be happy you wont have to ever speak to them again once you leave (If your like me)...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (1 Feb 2004)

well, my entire family is agaisnt my choice, save my immediate family (mother, father, sister) because as i‘ve said in other posts, encourage me as my father was with the SSR for a while and he stands firmly that its a great life and career. The rest of my family is agaisnt it, solelyb ecause they dont understand it. They‘re all fishermen from the east coast and my career choice is definatly a shock to them.

I plan to talk to them, and actually look foreward to it after I have had a few years in, so then i can give them some logical, first hand explanations for my choices, rather than what they perceive as "naive me with my lack of knowledge and understanding of what im getting into".

You might find time away from your family will do a world of good for you and them.


----------



## PteMacPooh (2 Feb 2004)

You are a soldier and that means guarding and honouring your Grandfather‘s right to say what he thinks.  Thank God we live in Canada.  

But you just have to learn that as a soldier and a leader some people won‘t always agree with what you have to do, but that it does not mean that you should not do it.  Sometimes you just gotta make the hard choices.  Sometimes that means pissing in someone‘s pickles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Feb 2004)

Well you could point out how their fishing is destroying the fishstocks and they should give up fishing because it is bad.......

When you make a decision like joining the military, do it for yourself and don't worry about what other people will think. Those that love you will always love you regardless. In my experience you will never please all your family members, who unlike your friends, you don't get to choose. My Grandfather (Stretcherbearer WWI) was really pissed off about my dad joining up in WWII, who was really pissed off at me joining the military, but he still loves me and admits that it was the army that straightened me up. So go and serve with pride. Good Luck

And ask your grandfather what were the words on the belt buckles of both sides in WWI
The church (pick one) has sent more young men to their death then most governments.


----------



## GrahamD (2 Feb 2004)

> Myself, I wouldn‘t hesitate a second to take someone‘s life if mine or my buddies were threatened, and I feel thats the right thing to do. But then there‘s the argument of whether its moral to place yourself in that position where you‘re forced to make the choice.


Thats easy to say sitting at home imagining a scenario where you have a clear-cut black and white objective, kill or be killed, shoot the guy who is standing out in the open firing his AK-47 at you and your friends.  What happens though when the shooter is concealed in a crowd of women and children? would you hesitate to open fire on them to take down the shooter?  would you be justified if you did?  If you wouldn‘t do that right away would you do it if your buddies started dying?

What if the threat is a child or a woman who is advancing on your position and you‘re the only one who notices something looks wrong, that you are 75% sure they just pulled a pin on a grenade, or did they? maybe its actually an orange they intend to throw at you, do you kill them? or wait to see if you were right.

The point I‘m trying to demonstrate, because no one has come right out and said it yet, is that yes, as a soldier you will be to all intents and purposes, a trained killer.  If you think you wouldn‘t hesitate to kill, right now today in any of the situations I described, I would bet that you are dead wrong.

I fully agree with everything said above about the need for the armed forces, and about the difference Canadians in particular make in the world.  However, long before any soldier finds himself overseas in a life threatening situation, he has been trained and conditioned to respond to that situation without hesitation, up to and including deadly force.  He/she has been trained to kill.

As for wether or not its moral to become a soldier where you may indeed have to shoot someone one day, only you can answer that for yourself, and it seems to me like you have already come to a decision.  If you think you are prepared to use deadly force in the service of your country, then you‘re probably right, but the military will teach you how and when to do it, thereby making you a trained killer.

The way you refer to a member of the Armed Forces though is not to call them trained killers, but rather "soldier" or C.A.F. personell.  There are inumerable differences between someone who has been raised since childhood to fight war, like children in Africa, or professional mercinaries like those who operate in South America, and soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces, and those differences are obvious and glaring.  Anyone who chooses not to see those differences is either a half-wit or they are intentionaly trying to bait you into getting upset and should therefore be ignored.

 In the end no one has to live with your choices but you.  If you go into the military for the right reasons, then you should never look back with regret on doing your duty as a Canadian Soldier.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (2 Feb 2004)

I think GrahamD pretty much summed what I was originally thinking in a nut shell. Soldiers are trained, not so they know what to do in a situation to the point where they dont need to think, just react. 

I know Im probably going to be shrugged off as one who is simply trying to dig up "gore stories", but has anyone here been put in such a situation in your period of service, or know someone who has? And how did you or the other person deal with it?


----------



## portcullisguy (2 Feb 2004)

Shortbus, you and I live in Toronto, where you might have to kill someone one day just to make sure you get home from work/school safely!

I swear this town is getting more hazardous than Beirut during an intifada!

Following on what GrahamD was saying, when things are in videogame-like simplicity, then the decisions are easy to make: "Kill or be killed."

Not having any personal experiences to draw on, I can only surmise from what I‘ve read and learned through law enforcement training that when reality hits, you will only have a precious few seconds to make the most important decision of your life or someone else‘s.

The reason the military trains and drills repeatedly is so that those decisions can be made as a second nature.  The police train repeatedly as well, but their focus is on the legal aspects, and the judgement itself - shoot or don‘t shoot.  None of my military training has remotely touched on the actual shoot-or-don‘t-shoot judgement, because you will be ordered what to shoot and when, generally speaking.

What the army DOESN‘T want is people who cannot follow orders.  When following orders becomes second nature, it is (I am guessing) a lot easier to pull the trigger.

If and when I draw the short straw and it‘s my turn to shoot-or-don‘t-shoot, I can only hope I don‘t let the side down and become the weakest link.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (2 Feb 2004)

tell me about it. Here‘s a lil story.

me and my buddy are up at Yonge and Steeles picking up a pizza. on the way to his house north of steeles on yonge, we‘re approached by a guy. He quickly orders us to "give him a slice or he‘ll stab us". Stupidly, we shrug it off as a bluff, and he follows us. I got fairly annoyed with his persistance, so I turned to confront him just as he pokes my buddy in the side with something. he didnt stab, just poked to prove he had a knife. My buddy then says "look fella, you better make sure you can do both of us in 1 stroke, cause you‘re gonna have that in you‘re face if you cant." Throughout this entire ordeal, we were both trying to figure what we should do. Take the easy route and beat the **** out of him (easily done as it was me and my buddy vs. him) and risk getting cut up. Or simply play it safe and let him reconsider before things went to the next level, he obviously got a clue and quickly turned and booted it behind an apartment building. 

Later, we had the discussion if we had actually stabbed him with his own knife if things came to a struggle. i came to the conclusion that I would simply throw it far away if I had gotten it, but as I reflect, I realise that Toronto IS getting quite different as generations pass when you are forced to make such decisions over pizza.

To end this, I later recognised the guy at school and got even.


----------



## winchable (2 Feb 2004)

My only experience of Toronto was when I lived in Regent Park when I was 7 years old.
....I learned how to run really fast, other then that I like Halifax more I must say.
If it has gotten any worse since then I think I‘d have to say I‘ll be staying as far away from central Canada as possible.    

Of course with the way Toronto is sucking more cities into its metropolis, Halifax might be a suburb of Toronto sooner or later!


----------



## Danjanou (2 Feb 2004)

> Halifax might be a suburb of Toronto sooner or later!


**** I see the Mayor‘s secret plan to procure good Donairs is out.

On a serious note, yeah this ain‘t Toronto the Good anymore. Still it‘s only a few really bad neighbourhoods, so far.


----------



## Tante Mu (4 Feb 2004)

Hi everyone,

I orignally planned to post this as a new thread,but having read through the above I think this might as well be the place to put it: It‘s not haiku-short, but please bear with me.

I am a student of Communication Science, English and Psychology at the University of Essen, Germany and am currently working on my Master's thesis. In my thesis I deal with the question:

â Å¾Which communicative means and strategies are being utilised in military training and education in order to enable/empower the individual soldier to execute (deadly) force if need be?â Å“

My basic assumptions are:

a)	...that any military force can only fulfil its mission, if it actually possesses the power to effectively use (deadly) force.
b)	...that most members of modern industrial societies (and therefore their armed forces) are not by nature capable of executing (deadly) force.
c)	...that therefore, enabling/empowerment to execute (deadly) force is a major task of any modern military training.

My working hypothesises are:

a)	...that there are two levels on which the individual has to be taught to execute (deadly) force: 1. Training of technical skills and knowledge on how to use force and/or kill, â Å“tricks of the tradeâ ? so to speak (the level of enabling) and 2. Education on the â Å“whenâ ?, â Å“howâ ? and â Å“whyâ ? a soldier's use of (deadly) force is justified (the level of empowerment)
b)	...modern armed forces all work on the training-level, but tend to not cover the education-level. (See: Kilner, Maj P.: Military Leaders' Obligation to Justify Killing in War. Online in: Military Review, General & Staff College, Fort Leavenworth.  http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/MarApr02/kilner.asp 

I would be interested to hear from anyone concerning the following:

Speech-codes used in training and military life in general concerning violence and killing â â€œ be they officially enforced or autopoetic.

To what extend does the educational level come into play when it comes to creating a soldier's self-image, ethical and moral questions related to the trade of soldiering.

I am open for any comments, thoughts, experiences or recommendations for further research and reading from whoever feels he or she can distribute, CF or other.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Tante Mu (4 Feb 2004)

Sh0rtbUs,

since this is your thread I do owe you a reply to your question:

In a society worth protecting those who choose to do so have to face being critisied for their choice - a fundamental dilema.

However, as long as there are people willing to solve a dispute over a parking space with an automatic rifle, those wanting to peacefully change the world for the better (one of which is your grandfather I assume) need someone to watch their back.

An old German saying says that "The smarter one will give in." - I have a variation hanging here which I fear is closer to today‘s realities: "If the smarter ones will always give in, eventually the stupid will rule the world."


----------



## slans (4 Feb 2004)

I just wanted to say Thx to George Wallace for posting that.

MY folks were origianly against me joining up. But after some time they came around. For some reason they think that when you joing is because you a war mongerer or something. But time has passed and they have acepted my choice.


----------



## KeV (5 Feb 2004)

Just look at it this way, if someone has a bomb on him, there are hundreds of people around, he‘s about to detonate the bomb, and you as a soldier, you have your C7 in your hands and you have the choice to kill this person who may kill 10 times more people if you don‘t kill him. If you do kill him, you just saved many lives and that‘s what you are there for as a soldier.

Even as a civilian things like this comes up. Let‘s say a drunk guy with a knife is about to kill someone you love and you have the choice to take away his life and save the person you love. 

In the end it comes out to the same thing exept the life that gets taken away is the one that was going to kill someone for no good reason. 

Yes, you are trained to kill. But you aren‘t trained to kill anyone.

Have a serious talk with your family and explain this stuff. I‘m sure if you do you‘ll feel a lot better afterwords.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (9 Feb 2004)

If you are not trained to kill, you are not a soldier, a policeman maybe but not a soldier, no illusions here, that to kill when needed is your fundamental priority! Your parents may not be as stupid or stodgy as you think, many have first hand experience and know what they mean when they speak. Don‘t sell them short, remember Kyle Brown and the "Air Borne" things have not changed as much as you might think! Think some more, you really need to understand, you are signing on to be "KILLERS" if you do understand, then I hope your good at it!


----------



## fusilier955 (9 Feb 2004)

I got one for you guys, this one was asked by my Commanding Officer to me and the other subbies.

*What is the philosophical difference between a police force and an army? * 

I know that this show be in the question of the week, but it has relevance here too.


----------



## meni0n (9 Feb 2004)

tmb, how do you know things have not changed, you haven‘t been in since 68?? Where do you get this?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (9 Feb 2004)

I think we may be getting wrapped around the axle over terminology. "Trained Killer" is being a bit simplistic for identifying soldiers. There is a big difference in what a soldier is and what someone who takes life is. Soldiers abide by a whole code of conduct and ethics. It is a lifestyle, a way of thinking and acting. Soldiers conduct themselves by a warrior‘s belief. Traditions, morals (both individual and society‘s) all play a part in the make up of warriors.

That being said, all this training, education, preparation and the approval of your fellow citizens may not be enough. Some folks in this thread innocently included certain situations where soldiers would or wouldn‘t shoot. In certain studies in the past, statistics (I know they can be interpreted many ways by many people) showed that as little as 30% of soldiers actually shot their weapons in a general direction of the enemy. This was even when there was a clear and present danger to them. This was unacceptable to the generals who thought that they could not have soldiers not killing each other. Through training and social conditioning the stats were improved to a much higher number. There are still modern wars where many soldiers do not fire but still carry out active roles by pointing out targets, encouring fellow soldiers or other battle tasks. This was even noted during Op Enduring Freedom/Op Appolo and Iraq today. 

"Cold blooded killers"?....
I think not.


----------



## Gambler (9 Feb 2004)

I really didn‘t want to wade into this one, but here is my opinion.
In a literal sense soldiers, especially combat arms, are trained cold-blooded killers. This means they have been trained to do it, and they kill in a dispassionate deliberate manner (in contrast to hot-blooded which would imply enraged, angry or vengeful).
That is the job, and there is no comparison to any in civilian life. Regardless of what your family thinks, if you have a problem with this concept, there are other trades where the killer aspect of the job takes a backseat to filing papers, handing out kit, etc.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (9 Feb 2004)

Gambler,

I should not argue against your opinion but it implies that soldiers can be automatons, parade square drill aside.
I think you are doing this guy a disservice by implying that anyone (psychopaths not included) can kill anyone dispassionately no matter what training they have received. There are some (probably a small minority) who can pull it off but I think emotions play a big part in this action. We are not talking about squashing a bug underfoot. I don‘t buy into the whole "post killing" soldier wracked with guilt and remorse, not being able to make amends with killing someone in spite of socially imposed values. Most go on to kill again in combat. One way to help soldiers over come this in the past was to dehumanize the enemy. I‘ve strayed away from the topic. I still think that family will play a big role in his decision but he is his own man.


----------



## GrahamD (9 Feb 2004)

> "Cold blooded killers"?....
> I think not.


You‘re responding to the insinuation that by "trained killers" what is being implied is that Canadian troops are cold blooded killers.  Maybe this guys grandpa isn‘t against the military, and doesn‘t belive that all soldiers are cold blooded killers. Maybe he just doesn‘t want to see his grandson be placed in a situation where he is forced to live the rest of his life with the survivors guilt of combat.  

When I included hypothetical scenarios, they were meant to serve as a demonstration that as a civilian, you really wouldn‘t know what to do.  However, as a fully trained soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces you would know what to do, or you would be ordered to do something and you would do it, because that‘s what you have been  *trained* to do.

How could you deploy an infantry platoon to "close with and destroy the enemy" if you haven‘t trained them how to kill?
Just because we don‘t frequently go on the offensive into combat situations as the Americans do, doesn‘t mean we train to be self defense experts, or submission hold aplicators, or missonaries who try to change the world with a bible in their hand.
  Our troops carry guns, knives, and explosives.  Tools used to injure and kill enemies.  The bulk of training to become a soldier relates to a soldiers ability to effectivly engage and defeat an enemy, and how to best insure that he stays alive while doing so.  Usually thats going to involve deploying lethal force.

What I‘m trying to say, is that this guys grandpa didn‘t say "why do you want to be a cold blooded killer?".  He said "trained killer", which all soldiers are by definition.

I think everyone in this forum understands that our soldiers are much more than simply being trained killers.  I think however that getting upset about peoples views which contradict the militaries core functions such as training our youth effective ways to kill people, is a waste of time.  There will always be people who have that viewpoint, direct family members especially.  The only thing you can really do is try to explain why you belive it‘s right.

People who take it a step further and express the viewpoint that soldier ARE cold blooded killers, or murderers, or women and children killers, obviously have no concept of what our military does in this world, and their extemely uneducated opinion on the matter is worth less than nothing.
  It is an incindiary viewpoint when it is expressed, and ironically since they are ones getting on a high horse and taking a position that many "advocates of peace" or "anti military types" are known to take, they are generally making an attempt to incite conflict with someone they deem as a violent person who they think is likely to act out when they are made angry. (which is obviously contrary to their own belief that conflict resolution through violence is wrong)


----------



## fusilier955 (9 Feb 2004)

Seeing there has been no takers yet I will elaborate.  Soldiers are not "trained killers", you could under all definitions pretty much lump in police officers under this catagory. 

 What a soldier does under permitting ROE is when there is a situation that arises, he uses a means of force to quell it.  

With a police officer, they have to cycle through a series of set protocol before they can use force.

That veiw is what many have adopted to be a soldier.  This is true primarily, however our secondary role (as shown in peacekeeping) is pretty much police officers.  We are to cycle through a set protocol before action can be taken.  I think it is an misconseption that we are now solely "trained killers", other organizations that protect the sovriegnty of our nation can be "trained killers" as well.  

I dont believe that the way a soldier defeats his enemy is in cold blood either.  Most do not know the person that they are killing, most do it in a very impersonal way, most do it without an emotional attachment to the act.  They do the act because they are told to, they do it to survive.  You try not to be killed, you kill who would kill you, that is all, none of that assasin crap.


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Feb 2004)

I was just discussing this yesterday with a police officer friend of mine.

We agreed that the fundamental difference is that police are trained to use less-lethal force options, and their mandate is only to take life is the extremest of circumstances, when it is totally unavoidable.

A soldier seldom has less-lethal options (let‘s not include JTF2 or whatever here), and the training centres around ways to utterly destroy and repel a clearly defined enemy force, necessary as a tool of last resort in implementing foreign policy.

Although civilians are a factor on the battlefield, and the soldier must still respect ROE‘s and minimize damage to non military assets/people, the bulk of the training is blunt, lethal force, with few lesser degrees discussed.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (9 Feb 2004)

Has anyone ever trained on the ROE mission in the SAT? I‘ve only used in for PWT‘s and defensive scenarios. Part of this SAT was portrayed on Truth Duty Valour during the Naval boarding party episode. Shoot/don‘t shoot could be played out here.


----------



## Franko (9 Feb 2004)

It‘s one thing to play a video game...

It‘s TOTALLY different when it‘s for real.   

Regards


----------



## chrisf (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by GrahamD:
> [qb] What I‘m trying to say, is that this guys grandpa didn‘t say "why do you want to be a cold blooded killer?".  He said "trained killer", which all soldiers are by definition.
> [/qb]


Soldiers are *not* trained killers, especially not Canadian soldiers.

The ability to engage in combat, and yes, if nessascary, take life IS part of the training, but "trained killers" implies that it‘s the sole part of the training...

Bare in mind for many years now, the bulk of work performed by Canadian soliders is NOT war making, but peace making, peace keeping, and very notably with respect to the "trained killer" idea, civil assistance operations.

That‘s right, the folks who you for some reason define as "trained killers" are the one‘s who rescue Grandma when an ice storm hits, the ones who save lives when floods hit, who are out there along firefighters when forest fires hit, again, saving lives.


----------



## Pikache (9 Feb 2004)

Soldiers are *not* trained killers?

WTF are you talking about? Do we train to shoot and do related activities that is designed to beat the **** out of the opposition for fun?

Yes, Canadian soldiers don‘t typically go to battle to kill the opposition, but that does not mean what we train for is not for war.

Being a professional soldier is what we are first. Peacekeeper is just another role we do in addition to being a soldier.

*JustASigOp*, you‘re probably type of people who get offended by ‘What makes the grass grow? BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD! What do we do? KILL!‘


----------



## Dan Gerous (9 Feb 2004)

The military is trained to kill its opposition, while the police are trained to save the lives.  A SWAT team goes in to a building to save lives, both the hostages and the "suspects".  They will shoot, but bringing the suspect out alive is the objective (secondary to the lives of hostages and fellow officers).  If the army is sent into a similar building, people will be killed.  The army trains to shoot first while the police tries to avoid physical confrontations at almost all costs.  It may not always be that simple, but it is one of the fundamental differences.


----------



## mattoigta (9 Feb 2004)

Thanks for enlightening us on how the army works, recruit. "If the army is sent into a similar building" we would try just as hard to get the hostages, we don‘t just kick down the door guns blazing if we know there are civilians inside.


----------



## bagpiper (9 Feb 2004)

Soldiers are not trained killers, they are trained to get the job done, no matter what the costs.


----------



## Pikache (9 Feb 2004)

Being a professional soldier means part of  your job is train to be a killer and if necessary, kill.


----------



## GrahamD (9 Feb 2004)

"Soldiers are not trained killers, they are trained to get the job done, no matter what the costs."

Ok, and what is that job that you are vaguely eluding to?  Is the primary function of a soldier to make sure that his boots are shiney, at any cost? To ensure that there is not a loss of life in any situation, at any cost?

Or is his primary (number one, main, fundemental, rudimentary, numero uno, first,) function as a soldier, to be trained, capable, and ready to close with and destroy the enemy?

A soldier who is engaged in peacekeeping, is still a soldier first.  If for example, rebel forces in any given theater of operation were to attack a Canadian military instalation, would the commanding officers be inclined to continue to commit thier forces elsewhere in accordance with the peacekeeping mission. No, everyone would be busy killing rebels, and they wouldn‘t stop until they defeated them.  Combat comes first, you don‘t ignore it, you don‘t learn how to fulfill peacekeeping agendas before you learn how to shoot a rifle.  If you haven‘t learned how to kill, you wouldnt make much of a peacekeeper, otherwise peacekeeping would be about sending hippies and preachers into conflict zones to try and solve differences through prayer and "sharing circles".

If people wouldn‘t be so defensive they would realise that those in this forum who are indicating that indeed soldiers must by definition be trained killers, are NOT insinuating that our troops are nothing more than "assasins"

If you would have bother to have read my whole post you may have seen: "I think everyone in this forum understands that our soldiers are much more than simply being trained killers."

Or, "People who take it a step further and express the viewpoint that soldier ARE cold blooded killers, or murderers, or women and children killers, obviously have no concept of what our military does in this world".

No one (at least not me) is saying that all a soldier does is kill.  However he has been trained to kill.  The police have been trained to kill.  Slaughter house workers have been trained to kill animals.  It‘s part of the job, the same as a forestfire fighter starting a controled burn to combat a fire.
  You wouldnt call him an arsonist,  he‘s been specially trained to start fires when the situation calls for it.  You could call him a trained fire starter, and you could say it with a sinister tone of voice to insinuate that hes no better than a criminal for doing it, but thats stupid, just the same as someone using that same tone of voice when speaking about our soldiers being "trained killers".

So here it is, in the broad array of tasks that a soldier must be trained and prepared to perform, falls the task of killing enemies.  Therefore he has to be trained to kill.  When his killing training is completed he becomes a "trained killer". He also is likely to be a trained boot polisher, a trained bed maker, a trained uniform wearer.  Do you see?
Nothing sinister about it.  It‘s a job.  Killing just happens to be a major component of the fundamental job description of a soldier.


----------



## chrisf (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
> [qb] Being a professional soldier means part of  your job is train to be a killer and if necessary, kill. [/qb]


There we go, the operative words, "if nessascary".

Yes, potentially having to kill somone is a function of the job, and yes, we‘re trained to do it, but it‘s not the only thing we do, far from it.

"Trained Killers" implies it‘s the only thing we do.


----------



## KeV (9 Feb 2004)

There are two ways to take it. Trained killers as assasins, and trained killers as trained to kill for a good reason.

If you take it as number 2, then yes, we are trained to kill. But it is for a good reason. And being a soldier is far from just being a killer. You can‘t simbalize a soldier as a killer.

If you take it as number one, then no we are not cold blooded killers that assasinate people for no good reason. 

When we kill someone, it‘s for a good reason. And the good reason is that the person that you are about to kill is about to kill you or someone else.


----------



## GrahamD (10 Feb 2004)

"Trained Killers" implies it‘s the only thing we do.

If you‘ve read my posts you would see that I‘ve gone through pains to demonstrate that the term "trained killers" doesn‘t necessarily have to imply that all a soldier does is train to kill, until such time as they go utilise that training.

When someone who is anti military says it, then that is probably exactly what they are implying.

However, when a close family member or friend says it, they may mean that they want them to realise that the world is going to judge them differently because they have been trained how to kill.
There is a lot of potential repercussions for taking formal training in the methods of applying lethal force that I think a lot of young people don‘t think about.  At least their parents assume that they haven‘t thought about it.
Such as, what happens if you hurt someone in a street fight?  Serious problems, thats what.

A lot of people fear military and police because of the fact that they are knowledgeable in methods of combat, even barring the use of lethal force.

For a lot of Canadians there is a certain level of ignorance in regards to the military, the only stuff they really hear about is the bad stuff you see in the news from time to time.  Many more assimilate what they see the Americans doing on CNN and in Vietnam movies and assume that this is what Canadian troops do also.  Then those same induviduals will turn around and judge our troops according to those beliefs.  There‘s not really anything you can do to stop people like that from beliving that you are nothing more than a government trained assasin, and thats something that you have to be prepared to deal with.  You may hang with a certain clique of friends who go of to college while you go off to basic, only to find when you go home on a holiday that they look down on you and aren‘t your friends anymore.

And for this quote: "There are two ways to take it. Trained killers as assasins, and trained killers as trained to kill for a good reason."

The point I‘m making in that the basic implication of the phrase "trained killer" is that an induvidual has been taught how to kill.  There‘s not two ways to look at it.  There‘s one.

There‘s only two ways to look at it if you are trying to take offence to it (a popular pastime in forums).  A person who has been trained how to kill, is a trained killer.

So a soldier is a trained killer, the same way a ski patroller is a trained first aider.  They have been taught how to perform first aid, therefore "trained first aider".

You would still call them by their title of ski patroller.  The same way you call a soldier a soldier.  You would not be incorrect if you said "that ski patroller is a trained first aider".  You would not be incorrect if you said "that soldier is a trained killer" (maybe overly generalising, but not wholey incorrect).  If he‘s not a trained killer, then he‘s not a soldier.

We all know that soldiers do more than just kill, and train to kill.  Thats been mentioned already, by me.  I‘m getting the impression that it doesn‘t matter that every soldier is expected to use deadly force in defense of themselves and their country, some people just aren‘t going to accept that they could correctly be refered to as someone who has been trained to kill.  I won‘t ask what they thought they were training to do the last time they participated in section attack.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2004)

This entire thread is retarded.  Of course we are trained killers, I don‘t remember getting trained to bag a deer with my service rifle.


----------



## gate_guard (10 Feb 2004)

ditto


----------



## Lepine (10 Feb 2004)

Kinda off topic

 but i once saw a documentary about canadians executing people.. enemy or canadian...

The point is out of 7 rifles they loaded one with a blank round, So if one of them regreted their action they could always think that their rifle had the blank round...


----------



## Marauder (10 Feb 2004)

If all the pouge MOCs want to live in the fantasy land that they can be soldiers without ever having to be mean or nasty or fill some ****** with lead, well that‘s fine, but you keep that attitude far away from me. That kind of thinking engenders doubt and hesitency, neither of which are conducive to surviving battle. There‘s no point to closing with and destroying the enemy if you can‘t pull the trigger and kill them before they kill you or worse, your buddies. I‘d far rather live with having capped some commie or terrorist f&ck than live with the knowledge that I got buddy killed cause I couldn‘t man up when the shooting started.

How about this: We all just agree that "Infantrymen are trained killers". This should let the soft skills live in the fantasy that they need not kill.

PS: Save Hermann Das Germann!!!


----------



## Gambler (10 Feb 2004)

Agreed, this thread is retarded. I don‘t remember training to build dams for floods or practicing shoveling snow for that next blizzard. But our budget was cut so we had to focus on something else.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Gambler:
> [qb] Agreed, this thread is retarded. I don‘t remember training to build dams for floods or practicing shoveling snow for that next blizzard. But our budget was cut so we had to focus on something else. [/qb]


Not trained for but don‘t forget one of the CF mandates is aid to civil power and if thats dam building, fighting fires etc then thats what we do as well.


----------



## Franko (10 Feb 2004)

Seems to me that on every gunnery course I took we were taught to kill the enemy with either coax or main...not deliver spankings or rude letters...

Regards


----------



## Dan Gerous (10 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte. Scarlino:
> [qb] Thanks for enlightening us on how the army works, recruit. "If the army is sent into a similar building" we would try just as hard to get the hostages, we don‘t just kick down the door guns blazing if we know there are civilians inside. [/qb]


I never said anything about killing hostages.  It‘s common sense that you try and save the hostages.  I‘m talking about the hostage takers.  Police are less likely to shoot them unless they show themselves as an immediate threat.  The police try and bring the bad guys out alive, not in bags.  I know the army would save the hostages, maybe do a better job because they don‘t worry about the terrorists being alive when the firing stops.  The SAS lost one hostage out of 26 at Princess Gate, but all the HTs were killed (possibly by the order of Margret Thatcher).  One of the HTs had actually been tackled to the ground by a security guard that was taken hostage but an SAS assaulter ordered the guard up and emptied a 30 round mag into the terrorist.  That is the point I‘m trying to get to.  A police officer would pull out handcuffs at a time like this.  The army isn‘t a trigger happy organization, but it doesn‘t hesitate to shoot.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (11 Feb 2004)

I see much confusion and semantics till the cows come home. If your a policeman you are compelled to keep the peace, protect yourself, and  victims of crime and apprehend criminals,preferably with no loss of life! If you are a soldier your primary function (note primary) is to locate,close with and destroy (kill) the enemy. My point is this, first understand the definition of soldier, then with that understanding under your belt you still are going to be a soldier then bloody well get good at it!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (11 Feb 2004)

My point about "nothing has changed" is this, get caught between politicians and generals and you will be hung out to dry as the fall guy, and the lower your rank the harder you hang! It was that way in the 60‘s and judging the Kyle Brown, air borne Bull s**t is is still going on, nothing has changed!


----------



## private_cowboy (10 Apr 2004)

lol whatever!  an infantrymans job is to close with and destroy the enemy so that implies that we are trained to kill them so get over it, and quit crying about.  "being a trained killer implies that we are only trained to kill". being a trained killer just implies that we have been trained to kill but its not the only thing we do, and even if it was it wouldnt bother me because the majority of the people you kill wouldnt hesitate to kill you or any of your loved ones.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Apr 2004)

If you check out Lt. Col. Dave Grossman‘s book On Killing you‘ll find that throughout history soldiers have had a VERY hard time bringing themselves to kill the enemy, even when under threat of serious personal harm. It takes alot of training to overcome this natural human instinct, and when overcome it takes serious conditioning to reduce the risk of PTSD later on in life. With this in mind...

It was recently clarified to me that the role of the infantry is not to "close with and destroy the enemy". It is to "close with and  _defeat_ the enemy.

The difference between these two definitions is the amount of control and discretion involved in modern operations. Destroying the enemy requires violence. Defeating the enemy requires the careful application of violence (among other things). Not like a psychopath, but like a surgeon.

As this all applies to the thread:

Trained killers? Yes

Cold blooded killers? No


----------



## wongskc (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by fusilier955:
> [qb]*What is the philosophical difference between a police force and an army? *
> [/qb]


To answer this and to simplify (well, for me anyway) what everyone else has said, i would say that the difference is that the army‘s purpose is to use the maximum amount of controlled force while police try to use the minimal amount of force possible to carry out their responsibilities.


----------



## bossi (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by fusilier955:
> *What is the philosophical difference between a police force and an army?*


In my simple mind, a police force enforces the law by arresting criminals, whereas an army stands ready to wage war - in both cases, they serve and protect their nation and citizens.

In the case of a police force, they are armed as a deterrent, or in case they need to defend themselves against armed/violent criminals.

In the case of an army, they are armed as a deterrent, or in case they need to kill the enemy (which is the ultimate deterrent ... as per the sentiment "The best way to prevent war is to be prepared for it").

As an aside, it sure would be an eye-opener for the Canadian taxpayers (who are paying for the Federal Liberal Party‘s gun registration folly) if the truth ever came to light vis-a-vis the deterrent value of firearms ... (i.e. how many armed police officers are raped in a year, compared to unarmed, defenceless targets ... ?)

But ... I digress ... (we‘re all allowed to rant once in a while ... eh?)

I strongly agree with the earlier distinction between "trained" and "cold-blooded".



> Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others.  If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts.  Of this you should take heed.
> Emperor Meiji:  Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883


----------



## chrisf (11 Apr 2004)

The simplest, though not entirely accurate, difference between an army and a police force is that an army imposes, a police force enforces...

The line becomes blurred when you have an army acting as a police force (For example, in a peace keeping situation), or a police force acting as an army (Say in a riot situation).

That‘s the way I see it anyway.


----------



## DogOfWar (11 Apr 2004)

We are trained killers. I have been trained in the art.

We are Cold blooded. I will not do so out of anger or anything else. I do it to accomplish an objective. Thats all.

My grandfather who was in Vietnam explained to me

"Its not the fact that you kill a man that bothers you. Its not that it is pretty easy to do. Its that at the end of the day you will have enjoyed it. You went home he didnt. You triumph"

031- To close with and DESTROY the enemy.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2004)

Grossman‘s book is very good.  However, I would suggest reading _The Dark Side of Man_ by Michael Ghiglieri, a former combat veteran (unlike Grossman), and an anthropoligist (Grossman is a psychologist).  Some different backgrounds provide for a different approach to the idea of man as a natural-born killer.

Here is the Amazon link.

  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203157/102-0438500-6127331?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I38VVGJLBE1YSH&colid=27SV7DXK5DFCT


----------

