On 2/11/2012 3:38 PM, John Doe wrote:
DanB2431B 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.


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, U.S. Air Force, retired