"Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote: > John Doe wrote: >> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> John Doe wrote: >>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote: >>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I >>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy >>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I >>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But >>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks >>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>> Actually they don't
>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom, >> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States... >> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff >> like waterboarding is to see how they will >> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A >> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance > of success.
Piddly semantics.
>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in >>> the selection process.
>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy > and your drops your comrades in the shit.
That's an entirely different subject.
> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not > suicidal.
Ever hear of "Japan"?
>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you >> are nym-shifting.
>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>> successful.
> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
> Are you in a movie?
>> but chance takers they aren't.
> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
Exactly what are your Military Credentials? Most of us in here have them or have been connected to the Military in some way in the past who generally comment on the procedures. What are your creds?
Mine is 20 years in USAF and I have worked along with SFs in my time and can tell you that they are not risk takers. They just know their jobs so well that it may appear that way to someone less informed.
John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>> Actually they don't
>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>> of success.
> Piddly semantics.
>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>> the selection process.
>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>> and your drops your comrades in the shit.
> That's an entirely different subject.
>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>> suicidal.
> Ever hear of "Japan"?
Yes they lost, one of the reasons being they disdained normal
military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
result.
>>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>>> are nym-shifting.
"Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>> of success.
>> Piddly semantics.
>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>> the selection process.
>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>> and your drops your comrades in the shit.
>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>> suicidal.
>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
> Yes they lost,
lol
Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
do a lot of damage.
> one of the reasons being they disdained normal
> military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
> supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
> result.
>>>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>>>> are nym-shifting.
John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>>> of success.
>>> Piddly semantics.
>>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>>> the selection process.
>>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>>> and your drops your comrades in the shit.
>>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>> suicidal.
>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>> Yes they lost,
> lol
> Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
> suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
> do a lot of damage.
>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>> suicidal.
> Ever hear of "Japan"?
There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special operations missions.
Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained to do any mission asked of them etc. But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Doe<hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Doe<jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>>>> of success.
>>>> Piddly semantics.
>>>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>>>> the selection process.
>>>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>>>> and your drops your comrades in the shit.
>>>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>>> suicidal.
>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>> Yes they lost,
>> lol
>> Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
>> suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
>> do a lot of damage.
> And lose every war they fight.
> Keith
John doe is beginning to sound like aren't with his post counts and body counts.
Dan <B2431B aol.com> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>> suicidal.
>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special > operations missions.
Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or not is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a special force mission. It requires the same sort of extreme discipline. Maybe you are more familiar with World War II Japanese terminology, and whether they considered kamikazes to be special forces or not. Not that it matters with respect to the subject, but it might be interesting off-topic trivia to you.
> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes > don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to > operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained to
> do any mission asked of them etc.
Including flight school? Sounds naïve to me.
> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
group that is full of difficulties.
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>> suicidal.
>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special
>> operations missions.
> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or not
> is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a special force
> mission. It requires the same sort of extreme discipline. Maybe
> you are more familiar with World War II Japanese terminology, and
> whether they considered kamikazes to be special forces or not. Not
> that it matters with respect to the subject, but it might be
> interesting off-topic trivia to you.
>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained to
>> do any mission asked of them etc.
> Including flight school? Sounds naïve to me.
>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
> group that is full of difficulties.
Obviously you have no idea what special ops is. I spent 14 years in special ops.
Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought up flight school. Yes, some special operators are flight crews. Ever heard of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command. There's more to special ops than the men at the "tip of the spear."
You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes. At the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special operators plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics," the rest of the world calls it reality.
I suggest you do some research on what special ops really means.
Dan <B2431B aol.com> wrote: > John Doe wrote: >> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote: >>> John Doe wrote: >>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not >>>>> suicidal.
>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and >>> special operations missions.
>> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or >> not is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a >> special force mission. It requires the same sort of extreme >> discipline. Maybe you are more familiar with World War II >> Japanese terminology, and whether they considered kamikazes to >> be special forces or not. Not that it matters with respect to >> the subject, but it might be interesting off-topic trivia to >> you.
>>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes >>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to >>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained >>> to do any mission asked of them etc.
>> Including flight school? Sounds na‹ve to me.
>>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
>> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting >> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a >> group that is full of difficulties.
> Obviously you have no idea what special ops is.
As much is your idea of what the subject is.
> I spent 14 years in special ops.
Cool. Are unmanned drone operators considered "special ops"?
> Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought > up flight school.
I also brought up "special forces".
> Yes, some special operators are flight crews.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
> Ever heard of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command. > There's more to special ops than the men at the "tip of the > spear."
Cool. Then I would wonder why you have no comment on one of the most extraordinary aerobatic feats in modern times.
> You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes.
Would "special operators" include a joystick operator of an
unmanned drone?! If so, I happily insult special operators.
Big fat egotism is one of the problems with some of our current military and leaders. Even some who pretend to be religious seem to think that human life is not to be taken seriously. But in fact, someone who is willing to give up their life for a cause should be shown maximum respect. There is no greater sacrifice.
> At the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special > operators plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics," > the rest of the world calls it reality.
Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
sense to me.
> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces
> is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search
> for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get
> over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
> specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
> sense to me.
The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special
Action Groups
Google picks up on the word 'Special' its a simple as that.
Real special forces are too highly trained to be regarded as disposable.
>> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
>> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special >> forces is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When >> you search for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same >> time, you get over 1 million results. Looks like some of those >> results specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. >> Makes sense to me.
> The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special > Action Groups
That is one of the lamest trolls I have seen on UseNet. A simple
search for "Kamikaze's Special Action Groups" produces ZERO
results.
Doing a simple search for "kamikazes" and "special action groups" returns a grand total of 28 results, none to do with Japanese
kamikazes.
> Google picks up on the word 'Special' its a simple as that.
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>>>> suicidal.
>>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and
>>>> special operations missions.
>>> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or
>>> not is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a
>>> special force mission. It requires the same sort of extreme
>>> discipline. Maybe you are more familiar with World War II
>>> Japanese terminology, and whether they considered kamikazes to
>>> be special forces or not. Not that it matters with respect to
>>> the subject, but it might be interesting off-topic trivia to
>>> you.
>>>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
>>>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
>>>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained
>>>> to do any mission asked of them etc.
>>> Including flight school? Sounds na‹ve to me.
>>>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
>>> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
>>> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
>>> group that is full of difficulties.
>> Obviously you have no idea what special ops is.
> As much is your idea of what the subject is.
>> I spent 14 years in special ops.
> Cool. Are unmanned drone operators considered "special ops"?
>> Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought
>> up flight school.
> I also brought up "special forces".
>> Yes, some special operators are flight crews.
> "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
>> Ever heard of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command.
>> There's more to special ops than the men at the "tip of the
>> spear."
> Cool. Then I would wonder why you have no comment on one of the
> most extraordinary aerobatic feats in modern times.
>> You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes.
> Would "special operators" include a joystick operator of an
> unmanned drone?! If so, I happily insult special operators.
> Big fat egotism is one of the problems with some of our current
> military and leaders. Even some who pretend to be religious seem
> to think that human life is not to be taken seriously. But in
> fact, someone who is willing to give up their life for a cause
> should be shown maximum respect. There is no greater sacrifice.
>> At the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special
>> operators plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics,"
>> the rest of the world calls it reality.
> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces
> is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search
> for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get
> over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
> specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
> sense to me.
When you have done some research what "special operations" means and stop trying to cheapen it with canards about drones and suicide missions feel free to get back to me. In the mean time I have had my fill of you.
John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
>>> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special
>>> forces is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When
>>> you search for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same
>>> time, you get over 1 million results. Looks like some of those
>>> results specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes.
>>> Makes sense to me.
>> The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special
>> Action Groups
> That is one of the lamest trolls I have seen on UseNet. A simple
> search for "Kamikaze's Special Action Groups" produces ZERO
> results.
If you must lie try a credible one.
While direct translations from Japanese to English are always
problematic the simple fact is the official Japanese designation
for what the west called kamikazes is usually translated as
either 'Special Attack Group' or 'Special Action Group'
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.
After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to be possible.
Daryl wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>> risky?
>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>> Thanks.
> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
> be possible.
You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>>> risky?
>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>> Thanks.
>> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
>> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
>> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
>> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
>> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
>> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
>> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
>> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
>> be possible.
> You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
> after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.
As the saying goes "Shit happens'
People walking across streets get hit by buses.
Painter falls off roof
BASE jumper hits something on the way down..
Little old lady slips in street and breaks her neck of femur..
George152 wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 6:19 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>>>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>>>> risky?
>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
>>> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
>>> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
>>> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
>>> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
>>> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
>>> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
>>> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
>>> be possible.
>> You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
>> after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.
> As the saying goes "Shit happens'
> People walking across streets get hit by buses.
Usually as a result of not looking before they step off the
footpath.
> Painter falls off roof
Usually because they are not using properly secured scaffolding
> BASE jumper hits something on the way down..
As a result of taking an uncessary risk - there seems to be a
pattern developing here.
