Split: What constitutes expertise on military matters?

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:50 pm

So, just to get things straight. People suggesting that knowing squad-based tactics, as in how fireteams are supposed to function, is somehow substantial military knowledge and that being able to learn that is something you need to have military training for?

I thought we were talking about knowledge pertaining to military personell above non-coms. Did i miss something?

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:51 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
GStone wrote: I couldn't care what you expected, but you also show that you were wanting to be deceptive. You say you're 'honestly curious', but you aren't. What a shocker.
When you ask a question and get a bunch of BS spin for an answer one shouldn't be questioning my motives. Which for the record where concerned with looking for a possible poser, which I can't stand.
I'm accused of BS spin, but at the same time you said you were honestly curious, but weren't. There is nothing I've spun. Both you and coyote are trying to make my posts out to say something they plainly aren't. That is spin and more than enough reason for me to question your motives, though I got the answer long ago. Your desire to try to make it look like you've won something...somewhere... has failed, just as coyote's attempt did.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:54 pm

l33telboi wrote:So, just to get things straight. People suggesting that knowing squad-based tactics, as in how fireteams are supposed to function, is somehow substantial military knowledge and that being able to learn that is something you need to have military training for?

I thought we were talking about knowledge pertaining to military personell above non-coms. Did i miss something?
I think the suggestions of a particular type of training, as a standard for training, when military tactics cover an overwhelming larger area of knowledge, is supposed to be a chief determiner. At the moment, I don't think it's gotten to exactly which type of personel.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:58 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote: 2. I have not said, that all policemen have such a training. The training would be different from state to state and unit to unit. But in Germany, the policemans are well trained and would become an officer, if they enter the Bundeswehr.
You said police or border guard, implying that all did. It's not my fault that you constructed your argument poorly.
I have said:
And there are other possibilities to aquire such training. In the police or Border Patrol for example. The german SEK's or the GSG9 are very well trained and can outperform most soldiers easily.
I haven't said, that all policemen have such a training.
Especially the direction to the german SEK's or the GSG9 should have made it clear, that the training is not the same in the whole police. It is your fault, if you ignore a sentence.

Especialy in an army, which has a high part of "illiterates" because they recruit their soldiers mainly from a lower social background.

My experience with american soldiers here in Germany indicate, that the average member of a german SEK or GSG team can outperform the average soldier easily.
I'm not talking about the American Army but the Canadian Army, which I was a member of and a high percentage of are well educated. Unlike the American Army we do not draw from just the poor segment of society but from all segments of Canadian society. And our individual soldiers are much better trained.
No, you have talked about armies in general:
Although the average SWAT team member has nothing on an military members wide range of skills.
You must have forgotton to mention, that you means only military members of the Canadian Army. And, does Canada have S.W.A.T. teams?
Or have they another name?

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:02 pm

Suggestion:

We stop the debate about GStones background.

He doesn't want or isn't allowed to gives us evidence and "we" can't evidence, that he is lying.

That doesn't led to a result.

And it is utterly irrelevant.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:09 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
I have said:
And there are other possibilities to aquire such training. In the police or Border Patrol for example. The german SEK's or the GSG9 are very well trained and can outperform most soldiers easily.
I haven't said, that all policemen have such a training.
Especially the direction to the german SEK's or the GSG9 should have made it clear, that the training is not the same in the whole police. It is your fault, if you ignore a sentence.
You clearly state that both the average cop and border guard and the special units have access to the training. It's right there in bold and italics for you to see.


No, you have talked about armies in general:
Although the average SWAT team member has nothing on an military members wide range of skills.
You must have forgotton to mention, that you means only military members of the Canadian Army. And, does Canada have S.W.A.T. teams?
Or have they another name?
Even the average American soldier has to perform a wider range of duties than a SWAT or ERT (Canadian SWAT) team member in the course of his career. From now one I will specify whether I am talking about Canadian soldiers or soldiers in general if that will make you happy.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:14 pm

GStone wrote:
I'm accused of BS spin, but at the same time you said you were honestly curious, but weren't. There is nothing I've spun. Both you and coyote are trying to make my posts out to say something they plainly aren't. That is spin and more than enough reason for me to question your motives, though I got the answer long ago. Your desire to try to make it look like you've won something...somewhere... has failed, just as coyote's attempt did.
No I want a straight answer, yes or no. Are you in the military? And if not where you got your training? I can't stand posers and if you can't say where you got your training then just say your job doens't allow you to say. I'd accept that rather than the mishmash of handwaving we got.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:15 pm

l33telboi wrote:So, just to get things straight. People suggesting that knowing squad-based tactics, as in how fireteams are supposed to function, is somehow substantial military knowledge and that being able to learn that is something you need to have military training for?

I thought we were talking about knowledge pertaining to military personell above non-coms. Did i miss something?
There is a difference between knowing squad based tactics and being able to employ it in combat.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:16 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:There's also a point that your missing in all this about people that are self-taught. When they go up against professionals, they typically lose.
I've been noticing a lot of this type of thinking at SDN, and while I can certainly see where that idea comes from, it has its flaws.

The guy (we'll call him Diploma) whose education's been specialized in a particular area is the odds-on favorite in any contest against a self-educated fellow (we'll call him Google) in a debate on that topic, yes. But there are too many factors involved to make that a bet I'd want to place blind, without knowing any more particulars. For instance:

1. Is Diploma a person of good character arguing a point for good purposes, or is Diploma just trying to claim some BS and hoping Google won't notice?

2. Is Diploma actually knowledgable, or did he simply collect a diploma?

3. Is Google just some idiot who believes everything he reads, or does he have the background and capacity of reason to actually read selectively have a good understanding of what he reads?

4. Is the subject actually what Diploma had to study, or was it just something Diploma might've had mentioned in a class once?

I'm not saying you should bet on Google every time, but attempting to make a blanket statement that Diploma is always going to be right (or, indeed, will be right even 75% of the time) is just not going to work.

You have to know the particulars, and while it is empirically valid to give Diploma some credit, it's an ad hominem to assume that Google is wrong simply because he doesn't have a diploma on the subject.

Granted, this could simply be an American sort of idea. After all, US history has frequently involved the self-taught doing remarkable things. The Wright brothers, for instance, are said to have been decades ahead of anyone else in regards to aerodynamic theory, a topic for which there was no specific degree at the time but which diploma'ed scientific minds were clearly far behind.

In short, I'm just saying that a diploma doesn't stop anyone from being a dumbass, even on the subject (or something near the subject) the diploma indicates knowledge on.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:25 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: No I want a straight answer, yes or no. Are you in the military? And if not where you got your training? I can't stand posers and if you can't say where you got your training then just say your job doens't allow you to say. I'd accept that rather than the mishmash of handwaving we got.
He has said, that he is not at liberty to go into the specifics.

What do you want?

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:28 pm

2046 wrote:
I've been noticing a lot of this type of thinking at SDN, and while I can certainly see where that idea comes from, it has its flaws.

The guy (we'll call him Diploma) whose education's been specialized in a particular area is the odds-on favorite in any contest against a self-educated fellow (we'll call him Google) in a debate on that topic, yes. But there are too many factors involved to make that a bet I'd want to place blind, without knowing any more particulars. For instance:

1. Is Diploma a person of good character arguing a point for good purposes, or is Diploma just trying to claim some BS and hoping Google won't notice?

2. Is Diploma actually knowledgable, or did he simply collect a diploma?

3. Is Google just some idiot who believes everything he reads, or does he have the background and capacity of reason to actually read selectively have a good understanding of what he reads?

4. Is the subject actually what Diploma had to study, or was it just something Diploma might've had mentioned in a class once?

I'm not saying you should bet on Google every time, but attempting to make a blanket statement that Diploma is always going to be right (or, indeed, will be right even 75% of the time) is just not going to work.

You have to know the particulars, and while it is empirically valid to give Diploma some credit, it's an ad hominem to assume that Google is wrong simply because he doesn't have a diploma on the subject.

Granted, this could simply be an American sort of idea. After all, US history has frequently involved the self-taught doing remarkable things. The Wright brothers, for instance, are said to have been decades ahead of anyone else in regards to aerodynamic theory, a topic for which there was no specific degree at the time but which diploma'ed scientific minds were clearly far behind.

In short, I'm just saying that a diploma doesn't stop anyone from being a dumbass, even on the subject (or something near the subject) the diploma indicates knowledge on.
You might have a point Darkstar if my post wasn't in the context of amateur military enthusiast's/insurgents/terrorists vs professionals.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:32 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
He has said, that he is not at liberty to go into the specifics.

What do you want?
He said he wasn't at liberty to go into specifics than went into a mishmash of crap about how he wasn't presently in the field and wouldn't be in the near future. In my experiance that's the mark of a bullshitter. If he wanted to close of further discussion he should have simply said his job didn't allow him to discuss it.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:37 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:
He has said, that he is not at liberty to go into the specifics.

What do you want?
He said he wasn't at liberty to go into specifics than went into a mishmash of crap about how he wasn't presently in the field and wouldn't be in the near future. In my experiance that's the mark of a bullshitter. If he wanted to close of further discussion he should have simply said his job didn't allow him to discuss it.
Maybe.

But I don't see the sense in the debate about GStones background.
He doesn't want or isn't allowed to gives us evidence and you can't evidence, that he is lying. That doesn't led to a result. And it is utterly irrelevant.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'd accept that rather than the mishmash of handwaving we got.
That is either you saying BS or you aren't paying attention.
No I want a straight answer, yes or no. Are you in the military?
The information you seek was provided before you asked the question.

'And as someone that is a scientist, as well as militarily tactically trained (though I've never been in the military and I'm not talking about something I just read from a book), I've been both college and real world educated.' -- page 6

You quoted me...and even bolded that section.
And if not where you got your training?
Cpl Kendall='So tell me, if you've never been in the military than how did you come by this military training?'
GStone='I'm not at liberty to go into the specifics, but it wasn't as any kind of rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist. I'm not presently in the field and don't expect to be in the near future, as well as the partial anonymity the internet and a made up screen name (but even that is limited with things, such as electronic surveillance, both legal and not), so there is just a tad bit of leeway with just mentioning it in a general sense. But, it would be inappropriate for me to go into specifics though there is still the opening of deniability left even though the entity of 'GStone' can be thought of just some kook that was trying to make himself sound more knowledgable than he really was.' -- page 6

As military, I'm sure you understand what the phrase 'I'm not at liberty to go into specifics' means, as you have now said you are, though even that isn't required. But, instead of accepting that, as you say you are now willing, you said 'That's exactly what I thought you'd say.'

I further made a few elaborations in a reply to coyote on page 7, where I said:

'-Is all my knowledge just theory? Answer: No.
-Have I been out in the field? Answer: Yes.
-Have I lead people and not just been one that follows orders? Answer: Yes.
-Was I even talking to you when I said it? Answer: No.
-Was painball how I learned? Answer: No. I've never played paintball.
-Did I learn with any of the methods I listed a civilian could use to get an idea of what it's like? Answer: Aside from reading Sun Tzu and using a firing range, I haven't joined an air show, I've never played paintball, I don't buy operation field manuals, I hate camping, but I know how to do it, I've been in a sub only once when I was young, I learned long ago how to scuba dive.
-Have I ever fired a gun? Answer: Yes.
-Did it take me long? Answer: No, I'm a natural shot.
-Have I ever fired a gun on someone? Answer: Yes.
-Have I ever been in a knife fight? Answer: Yes.
-Have I ever fought unarmed against someone with a gun or without one? Answer: Yes to both.
-Have I ever watched men die and/or were they part of the ones I've lead? Answer: Yes to both.'

This discontinuity amongst your posts on the last couple of pages makes me think it isn't willful forgetting.

Now, on this board, since you had said you were military, you might get a question about what you did, when you served. At SDN, to make such a statement would most likely get call for your name, rank, serial number, where you were station, when, what you did for the deliberate purpose of wanting to see if you were telling the truth, though I don't 9 out of 10 attempts never get past the 'anyone know how to find if it's true...no?...oh, well' stage and unless you can prove it, you will always be thought to be lying if you disagree with the higher ups.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:There is a difference between knowing squad based tactics and being able to employ it in combat.
Military training doesn't guarantee combat experience though. So, in your opinion, is it the training or the combat experience that is needed to effectively be able to participate in a Vs. Debate?

Post Reply