Jump to content

Talk:Special forces/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Suggestion:

should this page be merged with List of special forces units? +++++++++++++++++++++ PROBLEM SOLVED As I was writing this critique, someone else simply took action and removed the offending passages listing the "five best". Well done ! ++++++++++++++++++++++ WHO ARE THE BEST SPECIAL FORCES?

I have a concern with the listing of the "best" special forces which seems to reflect the continued jingoism that exudes from discussions of "elites".

The statement that the US are the BEST special forces, and that the other top four nations are those listed, seems somewhat arbitrary and indeed, rather far fetched. The job of training foreign troops, acquiring language skills, calling in air strikes and conducting autonomous raids such as those of the Green Berets and Ranger Battalions are impressive military skills but very widespread in the world's militaries. Indeed, as a case in point, Canada considers any of its nine regular infantry battalion to have the skills of Rangers and its light battalions, in particular, all have at least a company of parachutists, many with exotic HALO skills. They have won against US Special Forces in international military parachute competitions. Their snipers are also among the best in the world. I am sure that other Commonwealth countries such as Australia also consider their straight-leg infantry (all professional soldiers) to be at this level. Being a good infantryman is not "special" in a professional army.

At the end of the day Special forces originated in the UK, their heritage goes back to World War 2. The U.S Army Rangers were born from the Royal Marines, whereby both used the same Scottish training course, also during World War 2. The rest of the world did not catch up or create units of their own special forces until sometime in the fifties. But those who had established their own versions of the SAS brand after seeing the success of the British model, do still exist (French 3rd and 4th SAS and the Belgian 5th SAS, along with the Australian and New Zealand SAS), and can be considered the forefathers of todays special forces. Though in terms of quality and skill the British SAS/SBS and Israeli equivelents still lead the world. With the US in 2nd place due to the quantity.English n proud (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The French Foreign Legion is hardly France's most exotic Special Forces group, although the 2d Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment (REP)based in Corsica trains for special tasks involving parachuting (much like the Canadian example above). The top counter-terrorist unit title has to go to The National Gendarmes Intervention Group, or Groupement d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale, which is France's principle counterterrorist tool based near Paris in Satory. It is also military (Gendarmerie), but under the control of a civilian ministry when operating in France; however it has frequently operated with great success outside France.

Special Forces should not include all military groups that are a few notches above conscripts, National Guardsmen and mass-processed 18-year infantrymen/ marines rushed into combat with little training; it should consist ONLY of those with the most exotic and demanding skills involving hi-jacked airplanes, hostages, covert operations including the snatching of terrorists etc. From this perspective one has to re-examine the listing of the "best five" and perhaps simply give examples of great accomplishements, particularly when dealing with "special" tasks. Surely the 1980 SAS rescue of the hostages in the Iranian embassy in London, or the Israeli raid on Entebbe in Uganda, are among the best public examples. However, any ordering of countries into a merit list is surely too arbitrary (particlarly with no example) and most unbecoming of Wikipedia.

Does anyone want to have a go at it? Am I alone to be ill at ease with this arbitrary ordering of the "best special forces"?

++++++++++++++++++++

Unless someone can back up the allegation that you have to be a psychopath to be a member of Special Forces, I'm removing it. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Slightly better, but I'm not sure I see the point of repeating a false allegation that most people don't believe. Do you have any specific cases of this allegation? DJ Clayworth 21:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've removed some entries of doubtful provenance. No disparagement aginst the brave people of these units, but they are not Special Forces according to the definition at the top of the article. For example: 

Clearance Divers 
Marine Nationale (that's the French term for 'Navy')
all the Police units ({Police are not military, even when engaged in counter-terrorism).
VAT 69, since there is no Google for it and it sounds like the name of a whiskey.

I would be really grateful if someone could look at the other entries. For example, does Sweden really have all those different special forces? And Costa Rica has no military. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed most of the swedish non-special forces. I belive the SSG is the only "real" special forces unit in Sweden. -- Jniemenmaa 13:28, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if whoever wrote the piece on WWII and the SOE could offer some explanation? #1 The Commandos were formed BEFORE the SOE; #2 How does the SOE qualify as Special Forces? SOE was first under Hugh Dalton, Ministry of Economic Warfare. SO1 propaganda, SO2 subversion and SO3 (which didn't survive infancy) planning. The only element which would fall under 'Special Forces' was the Small Scale Raiding Force which SOE went on to form. Effectively they were the SOE's own Commandos, which became administered by Combined Operations for the SOE and ended up operating with the Commandos and eventually its men dispersed into other 'Special Forces'. We would like to rectify this entry but it will entail a complete re-entry.

Also, under United Kingdom the Royal Marines - Commandos entry should be revised to Commandos – Army, and, Commandos - Royal Marines. Accepted the Royal Marines often like to purport there are ‘only’ Commandos, but without wishing to upset anyone there are Army Commandos and RAF Special Forces. Again, correcting these facts means some rewriting. CVA 21 Oct 2003

  • Auxiliary Units, to clarify - When we made the accurate statement that the W.W.II Commandos spawned a number of other special force units, we are saying that the founders or pioneers of several special forces did so directly from, or while they were part of the Commandos. The Auxiliary Units were set-up as Britain’s covert resistance force to come into play in the event of a German invasion. Colin Gubbins devised them as a branch of the SOE but they did not originate from members of the Commandos. Gubbins, together with Joe Holland and others, was among Britain’s foremost authorities on guerrilla warfare and had made a concerted study of this practice well before the war started. When the threat of invasion was greatest, the Commandos themselves were temporarily placed under command of the Home Forces for tactical deployment and particularly (though by no means exclusively) to react rapidly to any parachute landings. Some other scenarios involved some Commandos being placed in expendable defence positions.---CVA 22 April 2004

For the history section, maybe the German stormtroopers of WWI should be mentioned.-LtNOWIS 01:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should be known that at least as far as the US military is concerned, Special Forces are a specific division, and are more commonly referred to as the Green Berets. Special Operations is the term which includes the Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon, Airforce Pararescue, among others.

We already have a section on U.S._special_forces.--G3pro 14:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but GSG9 is part of the German Border Police (Bundesgrenzschutz). They are not part of the military. By the same token we would have to include all the anti-terror and SWAT outfits of the FBI and so on. Cheers! Florian, Berlin Floflei6 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several (civil) police agencies are still in Category:Special forces by country, e.g. Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong) and GSG 9 (btw the BGS is now known as German Federal Police). See Talk:Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale#GIGN and special forces for the problem of a military unit involved in civil police tasks. Apokrif 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Even now there seems to be a lot of confusion within the article about what units are special forces. The term "special forces" does not just mean an elite unit. It refers, as the intro correctly states, to small military units designed for unconventional warfare. I don't think the US Ranger battalion is considered special forces, for example. Isomorphic 7 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

U.S. Army Rangers are technically classified as airborne light infantry. They are considered elite and are part of the Special Operations Command, but they're not technically "special forces." The only 'technical' special forces the US Army has are the Green Berets (with the appropriate title of "US Army Special Forces"). Delta Force is not admitted to exist but probably classifies as well. Calling Rangers "special forces" is stretching it given that they're just used as an elite infantry force. I know I'll aggrivate someone with this, but anything a Ranger can do /any/ airborne-qualified infantryman can do. Rangers are just supposed to do it better. --165.134.195.86 14:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of editing the beginning of the article to clarify the terms by expressly stating that an elite force is not necessarily a special force, though a special force is usually elite to some degree. Nor should a military specialist (engineer, doctor, forward observer) be confused with a special force though a special force team may certainly include members with military specialist training.

Sensemaker

"Special Forces" vs "Special Operations Forces"

The name of this article should primarily be "Special Operations Forces", as the term "Special Forces" specifically refers to United States Army Special Forces, whereas the term "Special Operations Forces" refers to the clandestine and/or unconventional warfare forces in general that most people associate with the term. The U.S. Army Rangers, for isntance, are NOT "Special Forces" just as the United States Navy SEALs are not the Special Air Service or some other specific combat group. It is basically the same mistake as generically calling "bath tissue" Kleenex. Trypsin24 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You would be absolutely correct if this article applied only to U.S. forces. However, this is an international article, so the term "special forces" is used as a broad term to define these various groups. Only in the U.S. does "special forces" mean something completely different than what the rest of the world calls their special ops units. In this case, the U.S. just happens to call their special forces "Special Operations Forces" (only to distinguish them from what they've already dubbed "Special Forces" but don't meet the global definition of special forces) but we're still talking about the same kind of folks, and as I recall, that distinction is clearly made under the U.S. section. The article title is very appropriate and accurate. --ScreaminEagle 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on the grounds that "Special Forces" is a name, not a title and that any other countries so-called "Special Forces" would characteristically fall under the definition of "Special Operations Forces" instead, due to their Special-Operations capability. Because, simply being in a Spec-Ops unit (even in another country) does not constitute the use of the term "Special Forces", if only because it is not really "Special Forces" merely what people would consider a Special Forces to be. Furthermore, the common usage of the term "Special Forces", especially in the United States, has been corrupted to mean any Special Operations capable unit in ANY branch of service. This being the case, to reduce confusion, and to correct the common problem, I think the title has ample reason to be changed. I restate my arguement by saying that there are not many countries that have a group called "Special Forces" therefore they are not "Special Forces". Due to the majority of Special Operations Groups not being named Special Forces, the name causes needless confusion where none should be. Because all "Special Forces" are Special Operations Forces, but not all Special Operations Forces are "Special Forces". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.68.68 (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there REALLY needs to be a distinction in the article if it is going to flatly ignore the "elite" type special forces.

--"The term does not allude to elite units, an undefined term frequently used to denote particularly high quality, but otherwise regular, units such as Napoleon's Imperial Guard." -- Not only is the last comma in the wrong place, but blatantly stating that the term "does not allude to elite units" is plain false. This is definately not a "B" article.129.170.50.56 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a Member of Special Forces

What attracts recruits to the rigors of becoming a member of Special Forces? Would such people be less attracted to other organizations? Why or why not? --argo 12:15, 27 March 2006 (ATL)

They are already members of other organisations. Certainly in the UK, selection is open only to members of the armed forces. They are attracted by all sorts of things; increased pay, increased operational activity, pride, a desire to 'be the best', access to more/different equipment. It's just like any other career - most people seek promotion or seek to move to a better company. Rob cowie 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Special forces vs special operations forces

Carryit: in official U.S. military usage, the term "special forces" does indeed refer exclusively to the unit commonly known as the Green Berets. However, in much of the rest of the English-speaking world, the phrase has a wider meaning. For example, in the UK, the SAS, SBS, and SRR are all officially described as special forces, and make up the United Kingdom Special Forces group. Please stop changing the article to reflect a purely U.S. usage (and a technical one at that, which I imagine is either unknown to or ignored by most Americans.) — Franey 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Franey: simply because a unit has the word "special" in it doesnt make it so. the term special forces is the green berets, the tab says 'special forces' is there any other unit with a tab that says "special forces"? there are many elite units, such as rangers or marine force recon seals the foreign units you mention as well as many others, but they are not special forces, they are what their unit designator say they are, to try to lump all of these elite units under one name of "special forces" simply wont fit the paradigm, its not a matter of who is bravest or who is toughest, smartest or best trained, we are looking for a definition of "special forces". what you are after is a definition that is all inclusive of any unit that thinks they are, well, kinduh special. if you think i am wrong try to join the special forces association without being a green beret and see what happens. even the first paragraph is wrong not all elite units operate in small size units. you are trying way to hard to make your definition fit and it just doesnt, if you want to lump all elite units together call them "special operations forces" this then covers the unit as well as the mission and doesnt offend anyones "special feelings" as you read the article it sometimes uses special forces and sometimes special operations forces. dont mix them they arent the same thing.

The U.S. Department of Defense is not the global arbiter of the English language. No-one is denying their right to name their units as they wish, nor to adopt what terminology they see fit: but this is not binding on everyone else. The Green Berets may officially be the only group within the U.S. military to be called special forces; that does not give them a worldwide monopoly on the term. As I said above, the Special Air Service are part of the United Kingdom Special Forces group, and answer to the Director Special Forces.
Outside official U.S. military usage, the term "special forces" is used far more often than "special operations forces" to refer to these kinds of troops. Even Americans use it in this sense. Some examples (my emphasis throughout):
  • a White House press release, titled "Vice President's Remarks at Special Forces Heroism Awards Ceremony", where Dick Cheney awarded medals to navy and air force personnel, among others;
  • a House resolution, "expressing appreciation to Turkey for offering to provide special forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom";
  • a Department of the Army (!) press release, which recounts an interview with the "commander of the Nicaraguan Special forces", and says, "The Nicaraguans protecting U.S. forces are first rate... out of the 162, 25 are special forces.... Nicaraguan special-forces are paratroopers with expertise in explosives, scuba diving, infantry, urban missions, communications and search and rescue."
Franey 11:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section making clear the differences between the definition used in the U.S. Army and that used elsewhere: will that do? — Franey 12:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Franey: very good, i wish i had thought to handle it that way, thanks carryit

Yeah I fixed it - All army Special Forces are Special Operations Forces, but not all Special Operations forces are Special Forces, no matter what they tell you. The term "Special Forces" is unique to the US Army as a unit designator.

Pissing contest and WP:NPOV

Apokrif 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day Special forces originated in the UK, their heritage goes back to World War 2. The U.S Army Rangers were born from the Royal Marines, whereby both used the same Scottish training course, also during World War 2. The rest of the world did not catch up or create units of their own special forces until sometime in the fifties. But those who had established their own versions of the SAS brand after seeing the success of the British model, do still exist (French 3rd and 4th SAS and the Belgian 5th SAS, along with the Australian and New Zealand SAS), and can be considered the forefathers of todays special forces. Though in terms of quality and skill the British SAS/SBS and Israeli equivelents still lead the world. With the US in 2nd place due to the quantity. English n proud (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe you mean the British Commandos. Special forces did not originate in the U.K. They have existed since the dawn of war.
While I agree that the pissing contest is silly, you are totally wrong to say no other country established special forces until the 1950s. I can think of several that established them during WW2, shortly after the SAS.Nojamus (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The two external links (isayeret.com and specialoperations.com) are not appropriate according to Wikipedia:External links for the following reasons:

  • isayeret.com requires registration and such sites should only be linked to in exceptional cases, see Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration
  • specialoperations.com does not contain any information, it sells goods and only has links to other sites. It is not a useful resources.

--Deon Steyn 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I'm working through to try to tighten the language, it's a bit fanboy at the moment and could do with being a bit more encyclopedic. There are also structural issues which I'll try to resolve. I'll avoid removing anything substantive at the moment though.ALR 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, tidied up a little for the moment. I was conscious that the article was heavy on the US distinction between SF and everything else and would agree that what the US calls SOF most of the rest of the world calls soldiering, but I've hopefully made it less defensive of the title. The history section needs quite a lot of work, it seems to include a lot which I wouldn't define as SF particularly during WWII but the wording is pretty confused. We could probably use some material from an established history of the development of SF capabilities.ALR 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Improving article

We need references for this article. I have a book here called "The Operators: Inside the World's Special Forces" by Mike Ryan (ISBN 0007199376), which will probably cover some of the required citations. Where do I begin? What needs refs? Cheers! Yuser31415 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Yuser - although yours above was made way back, it is still highly relevant. Please add refs. Any are better than none. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I have reverted changes by User:ALR, because the last revision by User:Nazamo was more neutral, sober and to the point. Specifically:

  • which conduct military operations throughout the range of reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, counter-terrorism and international military relationships.
  1. "throughout the range of" sounds like all forces do all of these operations, which is not the case
  2. "international military relationships" is not a military operation.
  • These operations may be carried out domestically, in the deep battlespace or in a clandestine manner.
  1. Redundant, because the sentence basically says "domestically or elsewhere" (i.e. the answer is either yes or no?)
  2. "or in a clandestine manner" doesn't even relate to the location (i.e. the answer is either yes or no... or orange???).
  3. Jargon and buzzwords like "battlespace" and "clandestine" only clutters the article and makes it sound like the a computer game ad.
  • Selection processes are frequently extremely rigorous and protracted, sometimes involving a staged series of opportunities with skills and expertise developing over time and attrition rates are frequently high.
  1. Contradictory: starts of about the "selection process" then states "skills and expertise" develop which would imply training not selection.
  2. Sloppy and overly elaborate phrases like "staged series of opportunities"; any selection is "staged" by some authority
  3. Using the term "opportunities" to describe part of a selection process is also nonsensical.

--Deon Steyn 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a couple of concerns, mainly about this becoming a very US centric description. SF Ops are not all about offensive ops, there is a reasonable level of international relations; training, permissive operations on behalf of other governmeents, information operations. The phrasing probably needs dealt with but shouldn't be removed completely.
Recce, deep recce, CT and info ops are all carried out by regular military units, generally the threat environment and level of discretion required is the key aspect of force element selection there, so again the implication that these are the sole preserve of SF is incorrect. I am conscious that you in the US tend to include a lot of things under the SF banner which most places consider to be normal soldieering though.
And as for selection or training, are you trying to suggest that over a six month selection process one does not learn new skills? I'd question any process over that period of time which doesn't involve development of new skills, not least a new tactical doctrine.
ALR 12:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in fact not in or from the US. I was in fact the one trying to avoid very US centric terms such as "battlespace" (not in Mirriam Websters and only referenced by US DOD documents). Furthermore very few countries outside the US deploy SF forces for non-military tasks such as what you call "information operations". I therefore find your comments strange, because you are accusing others of the exact things you are doing. "Selection" versus "training" is admittedly subtle, but just because one force uses the term "selection" it does not apply to all. I would simply prefer less spy (i.e. "covert"), computer game, US centric jargon ("battlespace"). The article should simple, neutral and encyclopaedic in nature. --Deon Steyn 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apologies over the US slur, only looked at your user page after I'd posted that.
The use of battlespace is very common in NATO and Five Powers Defence Agreement work, which is where I'm involved. I'll acknowledge that FPDA SF assets are heavily SAS influenced, as indeed are your own.
I may not have been very clear about the IO issue. The US is about the only country which does define that as an SF activity, in most militaries they are pretty much normal soldiering. I'd also suggest that IO is a core military discipline, it's certainly not a civvy activity.
The snag is, the SF arena is not simple, there is no clear set of definitions about what constitutes SF activity and the majority of reliable sources are protected, with other sources being extremely unreliable.
ALR 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I would not classify being incorrectly called a US citizen as a "slur", but I suppose that depends on your point of view :-)))
I have found the Wikipedia guideline I was thinking of regarding terms such as battlespace: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "Battlespace" could be a neologisms since it's been coined only recently, doesn't appear in a dictionart such as Webster and it's meaning isn't immediately clear to a reader not familiar with it.
It looks like we are thinking along the same lines in that most SF activities are very much vague and they can include almost anything, but for the most part the classical forces we tend to think of do in fact perform mainly conventional military tasks ("soldiering"), but simply to a degree that requires more training and more capable soldiers.
I think we could next look at the "Usage of the term" paragraph which might require some tweaking. Thanks for the well mannered and informed discussion! Deon Steyn 08:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm also aware that as a moderately senior, staff trained and operationally experienced officer (although not SF) a lot of the language is second nature to me.ALR 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An officer! You know you have opened yourself up to all sorts of ridicule now :-))) No worries, few of us are perfectly smooth writers and that's the collaborative power/beauty of wikipedia where every one pitches in to contribute or polish. --Deon Steyn 09:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Formerly. Management consultant now, I'm not sure which is worse ;)
J2, J4, J6 background.
ALR 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Disadvantages

Disadvantages

Special Forces may have a reduced espirt-de-corps than other units, due to their temporary or ad-hoc nature, though this of course varies depending on the force, the unit and even individuals. In armies with a regimental system (like many commonwealth militaries) where a soldiers identification with his unit is strong, this can be an issue.

Does anyone agree with this statement? I don’t see any evidence that those nations with a regimental system, that their special forces have a reduced espirt-de-corps. And many special forces are not ad-hoc, but have been established for decades. Chwyatt (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD/Deletion

I'm not certain why the recent PROD was placed on this article. The stated reason is not valid one for a PROD. In fact, This page is subject to clashes over international variations in definition of the term is basically a content dispute, and not a reason on its own to delete anything, even with an AFD. The topic is certainly notable, and there are a few sources, though the article certainly needs more. I have no clue why the nominator felt their concerns were best adressed by a PROD, since they did not explain themselves here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraph removed

Have removed the following:

  • Special Forces tend to have a disproportionate effect to their numbers and are often despite their higher cost of training and maintenance therefore more cost effective.

If you can make some sense out of it, please do so and return it to article. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WWII Waffen SS

The Waffen-SS were sort of regarded as the "elite" infantry of the german side. I'm wondering if they would be considered special forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Some Waffen SS units were considered Elite, but almost all served as conventional units. Therefore they are NOT special forces. 84.37.128.156 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name

The article should be moved to Special Forces, as this is a proper noun and both words should be capitalized. Green Squares (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Special Forces blends into Gangsterism

Why is there no mention of the ethico-legal aspect of "special forces"? These agents are often in outrageous conflict with the laws of civilized warfare and could be shot summarily for their gangsterlike war-crimes and atrocities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.166.200 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A valid but unfashionable point! I recently substantiated this pro-ethical and interesting perspective w/help of Beaumont's Military Elites book... This perspective is valuable, so please re-situate or re-fit instead of brutally deleting the recently posted data, if something appears indecorous... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this. It was given, IMO, far too much weight, and the quote from the source was unnecessarily long. The first paragraph read like a personal view, not an encyclopedic treatment of what secondary sources say on the subject. I;m not an expert on this point of view - is there a significant range of sources which cover it? --hippo43 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew this would happen--Wikipedia editors seem to love annihilating in milliseconds non-Wiki-cultists efforts and good-willed attempts at making the articles intelligent and thought-provoking and relevant.

Okay, the quote is too long, some one can trim it--WHY DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION ON THE LEGAL-ETHICAL AMBIGUITY OF SPECIAL FORCES, WHICH IS RELEVANT AND THOUGHT-PROVOKING, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF STYLISTIC QUIBBLES?

WHY NOT BUILD UPON WHAT I (A NON-WIKIPEDIA-CULTIST, A TRUE DISADVANTAGE) TYPED, CORRECTING AND REFINING IT IF IT CONTAINS A BASIC RELEVANT, REASONABLE, OR THOUGHT-PROVOKING POINT, INSTEAD OF JUST THOUGHTLESSLY ASSASSINATING THE DECENT ROUGH DRAFT OF WHAT COULD BE A NEW AND INTERESTING ADDITION TO THE DRY BLAND ARTICLE AS IT IS? (SORRY CAPS GOT STUCK)

The legal and moral ambiguity of the idea of "special (military) forces" is well-attested in military literature and military law journals, etc. The basic core section should somehow by preserved, but altered and tweaked, w/more sources...I just dont have 24/7 on the computer to do all this... As it is, the readership is learning only random details about special forces and not WHY they are significant and ethico-morally enigmatic... At least an ethics perspective section should be put in, of some kind, so the readership is not totally unenlightened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't about "stylistic quibbles", but a concern for the weight given to this viewpoint within the article (in line with the policy WP:NPOV) and the quality of what was written. As I said above, the text you added read (to me, at least) like a personal essay on the subject, and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. If this aspect has indeed received widespread coverage in reliable sources, I'd suggest two things you can try: 1 - maybe add the text that you propose for the section here, in the talk page, so that it can be discussed by any interested editors. 2 - supply references for a broader range of sources which deal with the subject. Hope this helps. I'd also suggest you read the policy Assume Good Faith. --hippo43 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for trying to be moderate and fair.

Here is the rough draft, wikipedians please tweak, expand and refine this thought-impulse; and while I am quite aware I am not the best writer (English is not my first language), I believe the point I was trying to address is important and relevant to the subject at hand, namely, the intersection of the laws of war and ethics/morality with the sometimes shady, extralegal character of special forces units and operations...and how this creates a particular legal and ethical situation for those associated with modern special forces...

Legal and Ethical-Moral Questions

Historically, special forces-style units have often possessed an underlying elitist, antinomian, nihilistic or even criminal background or undercurrent to their activities (which activities are typically situated in a legal and moral grey area); therefore, human rights and laws of war traditions (reflected in such customary agreements as the Geneva Conventions, etc.), as conventionally understood, have sometimes been disregarded or abrogated for the sake of an amoral efficiency; or, more rarely, an esotericist antinomian doctrine (e.g., the Ismaili Hashshashin).

In connection with this subject, military scholar Roger A. Beaumont, for example, has pointed out the atavistic temptation of possible psychological and moral regression offered by the seeming romanticism of special forces-type units:

"Twentieth-century military elite units have a darker side to their nature. The use of 'special forces' is a virtual acceptance by their masters that they are outside the laws of war and the limits of civility. Most modern corps d'elite were expected to behave more like gangsters than soldiers... Like guerrillas, these elites were to avoid anything resembling a fair fight. The enthusiasm which the exploits of these units fanned in the publics of their parent nations in war and peace is grim testimony to the human fragility of the traditions of civility under stress...

Elite (special) forces are virtually encapsulated delinquency in many instances. Like guerrilla bands or street gangs, corps d'elite adopt strange customs and habits and costumes unrelated to any specific purpose. Just as guerrilla activities blend into the world of the gangster, some elite forces have assumed the posture of virtual hoodlums ... Since almost every elite (special) force of the twentieth century has cut close to or across the laws of war at some point, the following description could apply equally well to youth gangs or elite units: 'They have an affinity for the romantic role of outlaw, which is perhaps the only status in which they feel they can stand out as individuals'" (R. Beaumont, Military Elites, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1974, pages 7 & 192). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ottomans

I knew that there was a system in the Ottoman Empire to train special forces, they were collected carefully from the sides of the empire at young ages (may be younger than 10 years) and sent to Istanbul and other main cities where that special schools in in which they start a strict daily schedule of Islamic teachings and military skills education. It is said that those forces were the best of the whole ottomans army and they were always in action.

i think this should be mentioned in this article as part of the special forces history before WW.I

i am bad in references, linking and editing, but i hope you guys will do it to improve the quality of the article

their name was "Enkeshri" or something like that. Dr B2 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it >>>> Janissary Dr B2 (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The term, "special forces soldier" ?

In Britain, is the term "special forces soldier" in use?


(It seems to me that in American-English, the terms used most frequently, are:

Gallery threshold (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The See also section, Ninja and Law Enforcement units

The See Also section has become a list of SF units or black balaclava specialist policing units with aspirations to being considered SF. I've culled the majority. The mention of Commando has been removed as it's already in the article. See Also sections should be handled in text, and these already are, those that qualify are listed in the two list articles immediately above, so there is no need to duplicate.

The issue is the listing of Ninja. Personally I find it a questionable link, so would tend to remove it as I see no justification for the inclusion.

ALR (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Ninjas are indisputably recognized as the originators of unconventional warfare and Special Operations, please watch this CBS News report:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4242971n

70.164.176.142 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bad it doesn't say what you claim it says....Ergative rlt (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Read this source from Dean Roshtar, retired member of the Croatian Police Special Operations "Alpha" division and 15th dan Ninja master of the Bujinkan Ninja Organization under Grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi for evidence:

http://www.bujinkan.hr/specwog/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

http://specialforce.info/special-forces-in-history/ninjas/

24.120.110.224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

The assertions of an instructor at a single school, and an anonymous, unreferenced web page. There's reliability and independence for you. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dean Roshtar is a former member of the elite Croatian Police Special Operations unit, which if you don't already know is considered an elite Police Special Forces tactical response unit specializing in anti-terrorism. He is also a Special Ops Ninja trained by Masaaki Hatsumi and a recipient of the highest level rank in the Bujinkan Ninja Organization, the 15th dan. He is NOT "an instructor at a single school" as you assert, he is authorized by the Ninja Grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi to represent the Bujinkan Ninja Organzation in the Balkan region (Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia etc.) of Europe.

If you would come to Japan and train at the Bujinkan Ninja Organization, you will see that the majority of the students are from all over the world and most of them are members of the military special forces, police SWAT Teams and there are also members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) and CIA Special Operations operators.

If you want to assert that "Ninjas are NOT Special Forces Operators" then you must show some references that prove Ninjas are NOT Special Forces. Because it is quite common knowledge that Ninjas are indeed Special Forces Commandos. 24.120.110.224 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is quite irrelevant to whether modern-day ninjutsu practitioners are special forces, much less the historical ones. Also, no one is trying to remove mention of ninja from the article - they are objecting to your addition of unbalanced, redundant, or historically inaccurate material. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the requirement is for you to provide adequate sources that support your assertions.
ALR (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To ALR, you are the one trying to change majority consensus by saying that "Ninjas are NOT Special Forces operators" so the burden of proof lies with you. If you want to change consensus you must provide proof that Ninjas are NOT Special Forces otherwise you are just continually posting your own opinions here on this article. 24.120.110.224 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus? Where? Here's a definition of consensus : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus. The issue here, which you don't seem to understand, is that you are not providing reliable sources and references. A single instructor with a small website, no matter how "elite" he is, is 'NOT' a reliable source, for the very reason that he could be a ninja-freak also, and that does not make his claims true. CET  ♔  20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the provided source, that you keep interfering with, has a very clear definition of what constitutes Special Forces. There are a couple of key criteria, one of which is that they are military assets, not policing. If, on the other hand, you can provide an alternative source that meets the reliability demands of Wikipedia then you are entirely at liberty to offer it up.
Until that time interfering with sourced content and misrepresenting the sources used constitutes vandalism.
With respect to consensus, you'll note that the majority opinion is that your edits are not particularly useful or constructive.
ALR (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


To ALR, Please refrain from pushing your POV that only the Military forces are considered "Special Forces". You are trying to reduce the status of not just Ninjas but also SWAT Teams, FBI Hostage Rescue Teams and CIA Special Operations tactical teams that are now serving the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for freedom when the majority consensus is that all the above mentioned are indeed Special Forces operators and your personal opinions have no place here. If you have a problem with SWAT, FBI HRT and CIA Special Operations Division being considered Special Forces then you must provide additional references showing that they are not Special Forces. You edits are not constructive and constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.110.224 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop arguing with the term "consensus". I pointed the definition earlier and I'll explain again : a consensus is when a majority of users agree on something. You are not a majority in this case. Now that this is said, the term Special Forces refers specifically to military, and only sometimes to paramilitary forces, and many dictionaries will provide that definition, look it up. The CIA SAD is a paramilitary unit that is an example of what fits the description of special forces, I'll give you that, but there is no need to be pushy about it and start an edit war over that. It is generally understood that special forces refers largely to military assets. If you disagree with this assessment, than present some VALID and RELIABLE sources to argue the inclusion of law enforcement forces, although I doubt you will find many sources that will back this argument. The same applies to your ninja theory. I will now request from outsiders to comment in order to reach a consensus one way or the other, and to stop this edit war from continuing. Do we agree that user 24.120.110.224 needs to provide reliable sources backing his points, and needs to prove the significance of adding "paramilitary forces" or "See also : ninja" before re-editing this article?(edit as of October 1st : user banned) Thanks,  CET  ♔  05:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would also add that ALR is not "reducing the status" of such units. Special Forces is not a compliment, it is a field of work. There is a difference between a heart surgeon and a brain surgeon, one is not better than the other, they just do different tasks; the same applies for tactical operators (whether it be SF or LE). It seems to me that you value the "special" part of the definition of SF, therefore want to include a field that you cherish. "Special" does not mean "elite", therefore, there is no "reducing of status" going on here.  CET  ♔  06:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop pushing your pov that only military forces are Special Forces, I must remind you that the Ninja are also originally a military force that served under the Shoguns of Japan Police SWAT, FBI Hostage Rescue Team and other Police Special Ops units are without question Special Forces. Please watch the following videos by Chris Ryan, who himself is a retired member of the British SAS

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOzua_rkcXo

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQRJzSffX-I

24.120.110.224 (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

what part of RELIABLE source don't you understand? Keep being stubborn, it serves you well. I don't entirely disagree with you but you try and act like you are right and we are wrong. All we ask is for reliable source, else we CAN and WILL challenge your assertions that law enforcement is part of the Special Forces definition, simply because it is widely accepted that the Special Forces refer to specific military assets. If you are trying to modify the article (you initiated the changes) then it is YOUR responsibility to back your claims.  CET  ♔  09:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Youtube is not a reliable source and I (we) don't care about your ninja-lover which seems to constitute your only "source".  CET  ♔  09:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A British unit can be found under Specialist Firearms Command you can see they make no claim to be special forces but a police unit. Other British units can be located by following the links on the page. What could be created is anew article about Law Enforcement Special Units. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You'd have pretty broad inclusion criteria there though. Again using the British policing model anything held at Division level constitutes Specialist Policing, and that would include firearms, mounted, diving, dogs et al.
ALR (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes but it would remove those units from here. What is the consensus (that word again) of changing the title of this article to Military Special Forces. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I'm uncomfortable with it as the definition of SF includes military.
ALR (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


There are lists and articles that refer to exactly what IP user is trying to include, one example is the List of special response units.  CET  ♔  20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Special Forces

I think everyone would agree this article needs some work.

  1. I believe we first needs to understand what or who are Special Forces and not just Special Forces capable.
  2. Another is when did we get the first Special Forces we can discuss the early units as background but Special Forces as we know them today only originated in the Second World War. Even then they were not called that which causes another problem.
  3. There are no Special Forces that are not part of a nations military. Police and civilian paramilitary forces are just that.

any thoughts ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Referencing - yet again

The lead to the article has been reverted back to a quite old, speculative wording that misrepresented the single source that we have available. As a result of that I've removed the source, so this article is now unsourced, again.

I'm now not keen on the wording of the lead in any case.

ALR (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead as it stood was a widely understood explanation of the term, without jargon, which made it comprehensible to a general audience. It was hardly contentious, IMO. The source you prefer refers just to UK special forces, not special forces in general. It is a single, country-specific source, written for a narrow, specialist audience. It shouldn't be necessary to have footnotes in the lead, but more sources could easily be found if you honestly think it's a contentious definition. If you disagree with the (unreferenced) wording, what would you prefer? --hippo43 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I prefer something that's accurate, sourced and reflects a wide range of doctrinal positions; NATO, FPDA etc. The section that's referred to is a general description of SF activities. the SF doctrine goes into somewhat more detail around how UKSF and other UK TEs support the doctrine, but that's inappropriate to use in this article because it's UK specific and there is an article for that.
I would also caution against misrepresenting your edit summaries. You reverted, and removed a source that was quoted.
I'm sorry that accuracy isn't something that you want to have in the article.
ALR (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree any claims need referencing --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course I agree. We all want an accurate article and all material must be verifiable. However, the only part of the current source that I can see referring to special forces (section 133) is explicitly about UK special forces, not special forces in general, so does not support the statements in the text - it does not lead to accuracy in the article at all. (If I've missed another part of the document which relates to SF in general, can you point it out?) It is also almost directly quoted, hardly ideal for the lead here. Removing a source is not in itself a problem, if that source is being used inappropriately. I'll remove it again, leave a very generic intro, and search for a better citation. If you know of other sources which take the same view (NATO, FPDA...?) can you give details? --hippo43 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You'll note that the FLOC is placed in a context of multi-lateral operations meaning that the assets of other nations will be placed OPCON to UK commanders and UK assets will be placed OPCON to commanders of other nations. That leads much of the content to be generic, rather than specific. You'll also note references to doctrinal conformity. Clearly in the SF community there is a very wide range of capabilities and any description of UKSF is going to encompass capabilities that others aren't capable of fielding. Equally there are elements of others SF/ SOF assets that wouldn't be considered as such in the UK model; Information Operations, Combat Search and Rescue, Formation Recce.
So we get down to is this a meaningful article? Given that there is no authoritative definition in the public domain, can we base this on anything at all, hence should it exist? We've been through this particular debate a number of times. This is what most people understand doesn't comply with policy and in any case since most people don't understand what the military does never mind SF you're left with the breathless fanboy nonsense of black balaclavas, Oakleys (subject to generation) and copious facial hair.
fwiw with respect to NATO doctrine most of it is driven by US and UK doctrine, and in this area the NATO SF community is organised along UK lines and derives the doctrine from UK. I can't provide a public domain reference that states that, I'm afraid that's driven by experience.
ALR (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well if we're going to play silly buggers everyone can have a turn. I've removed everything that's unsourced except the introduction, which is currently undefined.
ALR (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WWI

You didn't put the World War One special forces, like the German and Austrian "Sturmtruppen" and the Italian "Arditi". Lele giannoni (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgot 1

what about the Araeni of Rome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Term "operator"

I speak in regards to U.S. SOF alone on this matter. This term is commonly thrown around in Hollywood and on TV due to it's "cool-guy" appeal. No U.S. SOF uses this term save Tier 1 units. US Army Rangers and Army SF refer to themselves and are referred to as Rangers or Special Forces Soldiers respectively. MARSOC are referred to as Marines. SEALs are referred to as SEALs.

This term is abused even more by civilians with a hard on for everything SOF. Use the term properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.206.190 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the term operator has been used in reference to SEALs since at least the vietnam war, check out some of the books written by SEAL vets of that era, they use it quite frequently.
When the Navy finally gave SEALs their own rating in 2006, guess what they called it? Special Warfare Operator. K380 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room

This is quite hilarious.

Where is the section where the LEGALITY and military LAWFULNESS of "special forces" is responsibly discussed, as opposed to conventional forces? The evolution is very briefly described, as if "special forces" did not constitute an "exception" in military jurisprudence, in addition to international law. Is this some sort of collective taboo delusive bubble no body wants to pop or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you exactly mean? Please cite a reliable source to show how special forces are in any way illegal. Hopefully then we can answer the question. Buffs (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, for starters, how about Roger Beaumont, former military policeman and professor emeritus of Texas A&M University? Wikipedia's "fringe" guidelines are impossible to interpret, but I imagine such is a " reliable source "...?:

"Twentieth-century military elite units have a darker side to their nature. The use of 'special forces' is a virtual acceptance by their masters that they are outside the laws of war and the limits of civility. Most modern corps d'elite were expected to behave more like gangsters than soldiers... Like guerrillas, these elites were to avoid anything resembling a fair fight. The enthusiasm which the exploits of these units fanned in the publics of their parent nations in war and peace is grim testimony to the human fragility of the traditions of civility under stress...

Elite-special forces are virtually encapsulated delinquency in many instances. Like guerrilla bands or street gangs, corps d'elite adopt strange customs and habits and costumes unrelated to any specific purpose. Just as guerrilla activities blend into the world of the gangster, some elite forces have assumed the posture of virtual hoodlums ... Since almost every elite-special force of the twentieth century has cut close to or across the laws of war at some point, the following description could apply equally well to youth gangs or elite units: 'They have an affinity for the romantic role of outlaw, which is perhaps the only status in which they feel they can stand out as individuals'" (R. Beaumont, Military Elites, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1974, pages 7 & 192). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mtmsquared, 12 September 2011

there are TWO wikipedia sites on the SAME TOPIC (special forces).

Both include similar info as the other, but both NEED A LOT OF WORK.

this site is the "most complete/factual" of the two (but still with errors): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations_force

this site is amazingly ridiculous in it's lack of complete facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations

(how can you discuss "special forces" and not even include NAVY seals, the most well known of the groups?)...


Just an FYI --- there are many other sites regarding CIA and Special forces groups that are not linked, not fully explained, and missing facts.

I am in the military, I do know what I'm talking about. Wish I could help more, but this topic's disorganization on your website is far too messy for me to comprehend.

google the CIA website and it's description of special forces (origins and current branches). this may help you all

good luck.

Mtmsquared (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are not two articles, just one with two search names. I would agree that the site needs a lot of work, unfortunately its never going to happen. With editors pushing their own POV that my SF is better than your SF. Finally what makes the CIA a reliable site? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

mortality rate?

of active special forces units, anyone?

Does it depend on country?

Missing WWI

Why has been erased italian arditi and X Mas? Please fill the gap Magnagr (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

History - Ninja

The third paragraph under the History section is worded in a way that suggests Ninja were from Tang Dynasty China. Is this really true? I don't know much about the history of the ninja but there is no such mention in the ninja article in wikipedia. As for the paragraph in this article, and the numerous claims and assertions made in it; I don't see any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.60.216 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph is one repeatedly added against consensus by an IP-hopping anon, and yes, it is completely unreferenced. Other problems, besides the fanciful Tang ninja:
  • "operators" as a term for ninja - as mentioned in earlier conversations here, this is a much-abused term applied to the members of a few specific units
  • Tang firearms - no such thing (and this isn't just a matter of poor phrasing: from earlier edits, the editor clearly wants this to be interpreted as firearms in use during that dynasty)
  • Bujinkan being linked to instead of the visible ninjutsu and "combat martial arts" both runs afoul of WP:EASTEREGG and is deceptive. While bujinkan claims descent from historical ninjutsu schools this is very controversial and not accepted by many martial historians, or by the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai or Nihon Kobudo Kyokai. Even if it was descended from historical ninjutsu, it would be an anachronism to treat it as ninjutsu.
  • Things like snowshoes are hardly "the most technologically advanced weapons", and firearms were a standard part of late-medieval Japanese armies. Martial arts were of course used by all wielders of muscle powered weapons (save perhaps raw levies); ninja being trained in them is neither notable for this article or evidence in favor of their being special forces.
For your information, when snow shoes were first developed by the Ninja during Feudal Japan, they WERE indeed state of the art, simply because no one else in Japan was using it. 114.229.252.189 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ninja being trained meteorologists is an amusing thought, as is the idea of them destabilizing China, Korea, Okinawa, or the other countries bordering Japan.
  • General puffery, redundancy, and overlinking/Easter egg linking.

The editor has been told many of these things in Talk, in edit summaries, and on their assorted user Talk pages, without any effect. Ergative rlt (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1.) First of all Stephen Kay Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi specifically give references in many of their books that Ninja originated from military generals and soldiers of Tang dynasty China that left and relocated to Japan because their Tang Empire was being taken over by another Chinese imperial army. Both authors specifically state that Sun Tzu's The Art of War was the primary foundation that created what would eventually become the Ninja operator. As a matter of undeniable fact, all of the Ninja special tactics were either developed by the Ninja themselves from the original ancient Chinese foundation or subsequently adopted from the Samurai following their battles with them. Ninja tactics were completely designed to be total offensive strike tactics that enabled the Ninja operator the best possibility of successfully completing their missions, be it assassination, espionage, reconnaissance or battlefield combat. Here is an excerpt from the book Ninjutsu, History and Traditions by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi:

"Among the ancient ninjutsu documents that I inherited from my teacher (Toshitsugu Takamatsu) are several scrolls that tell of Chinese ex-patriots who fled their native land to seek sanctuary in the islands of Japan. Chinese warriors, scholars, and monks alike made the journey to find new lives in the wilderness of Ise and Kii south of the capitals in Nara and then Kyoto. Taoist sages like Gamon, Garyu, Kain, and Unryu, and generals from Tang China such as Cho Gyokko, Ikai, and Cho Busho brought with them the knowledge that had accumulated over the centuries in their native land (China). Military strategies, religious philosophies, folklore, cultural concepts, medical practices, and a generally wide scope of perspective that blended the wisdom of China with that of India, Tibet, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia were their gifts to their newly-found followers in Japan. Remote and far flung from the (Chinese) Emperor's court in the capital (China), the cultural ancestors of the Ninja lived their lives as naturalists and mystics, while the mainstream of society became increasingly structured, ranked, stylized, and eventually tightly controlled. As the passage of time continued to unfold the fabric of Japan's history, the Ninja and their ways of accomplishment, known as Ninjutsu, were always present behind the scenes working subtly with the events of all the eras to ensure the survival and independence of their families and lands. In the regions of Iga and Koga, Ninjutsu became a special skill, refined and perfected by over seventy families, each with their own unique methods, motivations, and ideals." Ninjutsu, History and Traditions by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi

2.) The term operator refers to any special forces warrior, past or present, it is even used in by Police Special Forces SWAT Team operators commonly.

Read here: http://specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

3.) Gunpowder weapons, early guns (aka. Fire Lances) and explosives were already invented in China during the 800s A.D., then used, developed and subsequently deployed by the military of the Imperial Tang Dynasty China during the late 900 A.D., that is a confirmed fact. If you don't know about the history of gunpowder weapons in China, please enlighten yourself by reading the article about the history of firearms here at: History of the firearm

4.) There is nothing "controversial" about Bujinkan being a Ninja organization. The lineage of the Ninja was passed down many generations to the Ninja Master Toshitsugu Takamatsu who then transmitted the knowledge of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan lineage to the current grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi. Although you must realize that of the 9 schools, a few of those schools are actually Samurai schools of tactics. The Ninja operators were very open to adopting, integrating and assimilating any special tactics that they considered to be of use in a battlefield situation. Which is why Samurai katana sword techniques, both in kneeling combat positions and standing combat positions, as well as shuriken throwing techniques, jujutsu and various Taijutsu techniques were adopted, developed and subsequently refined and improved to suit the mission profile of the Ninja operator. The rest of the remaining schools are composed of different tactics and combat related skills developed exclusively, and building upon their original ancient Chinese foundation, by the Ninja clans of Iga and Koga during Feudal Japan. Skills such predicting weather (aka. meteorology), geography (aka. knowing your terrain and your enemy's terrain) and medical skills such as herbal medicine and trauma management for injuries, which are still very important even for modern Special Forces operators currently in deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

5.) The Ninja's mission profile would sometimes require them to infiltrate enemy territory in much the same way as modern day Special Forces cells particularly those of the U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six, Delta Force, FBI Hostage Rescue Team and most particularly the CIA's Special Activities Division, which for those of you who don't know is just the Special Forces detachment of the CIA.

6.) It is true that Ninja's were at the cutting edge of technology, whether it was building their own bamboo cannons that were operated by a two man Ninja team, gunpowder explosives, smoke bombs for deception and cover or developing stealth flotation devices to developing entry tools and climbing tools to scale walls are all documented extensively in the following book:

Ninjutsu, History and Tradition by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, 34th Grandmaster of the Togakure Ryu

Read it here: http://www.amazon.com/Ninjutsu-History-Tradition-Masaaki-Hatsumi/dp/0865680272/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331499532&sr=1-4

Please read this following article about the Ninja operator, it was written by an Croatian Police Special Forces operator named Dean Roshtar, who is also a 15th degree Blackbelt Ninja trained by the grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi of the Bujinkan Ninja Organization:

http://specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& 114.229.252.189 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those "ancient ninja documents" are considered fraudulent by scholars not affiliated with bujinkan, and your spamming of an unreliable website (one that has already been discussed here) doesn't help your case, especially since it doesn't back up many of your claims anyway ("operators", firearms, etc.). The Wikipedia article you refer to also contradicts your assertions, and "the military of the Imperial Tang Dynasty China during the late 900 A.D" couldn't use firearms because the Tang dynasty didn't even exist then. I also wonder what the Inuit etc. would think of your claim that ninja invented snowshoes. Ergative rlt (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


First of all, you are the one that is pushing your pov nonsense, and second, the snowshoes were independently developed by both Inuits and Ninjas. Many technologies in the world have been independently developed in different parts of the world by two separate peoples at two separate time periods! A good example would be something that everyone around the world would have needed such as a bow and arrow for use to hunt animals to provide a steady food supply for the family, tribe or country. Another good example of a technology that was independently developed by different peoples, even different species of humans around the world is the stone knife or cutting tool, made from stone. All around the world the stone knife was developed independently by the different species of humans during different time periods, whether they were Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapiens, Homo erectus pekinensis, Denisovan and Homo Ergaster, they all independently "invented" and develop the technology of the stone knife because it was a tool necessary for cutting hunted animals, thus a tool for survival.

The gunpowder firearm known as the fire lance was already developed in China by the mid- 900 A.D., you should go re-read the article, which you claim to have read, where it specifically mentions it. But to make it easier for you, I am going to put the History of Firearms excerpt here for you to read:

"The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang," from the History of Firearms Wikipedia article.

First of all "mid-10th century" translates as mid 900 A.D. which corresponds exactly to the time period of the late Tang Dynasty China. And second, the fact that you missed this particular passage simply tells me that you either didn't read carefully or most likely just quickly skimmed through the article and subsequently missed this sentence and decided to proceed with pushing your pov nonsense and consistently deleting any references to Ninjas being Special Forces despite the overwhelming evidence and literature, both historical and present, supporting this, undeniable!

And I must also mention the references given by the scientist and historian Sir Joseph Needham who first documented in his monumental Science and Civilisation in China that the firearm known as "Firelance" was already developed in the late 900's A.D. which corresponds exactly to the period of time in the late Tang Dynasty China. And who are these so-called "scholars" that supposedly consider the Ninja scrolls to be "fraudulent," who are they to judge! They themselves are unqualified to say anything negative about the Bujinkan organization which has presented all the evidence of their legitimate history to the public in order to discredit those "scholars" who are opposing everything done by the Bujinkan Ninja Organization simply because they are representing some competing interest, most likely their own money. Those so-called "scholars" you mentioned are just looking out for themselves...greedy!

And that link I put on here is written by a former Police Special Forces operator, you can go confirm for yourself, undeniable! His name is Dean Roshstar, and he was member of the Croatian Police Special Forces, Alpha Team and he is also a Ninja operator holding a 15th Degree Blackbelt from the Bujinkan Ninja Organization directly under the grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi! 222.186.101.77 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Raiders

I suggest the Marine Raiders be added to the WWII section.--71.223.159.201 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The page Marine Raiders say that "Marine Raiders Battalion are said to be the first United States special operations forces to form and see combat in World War II". I think this can be added. Any comment? Anir1uph (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Specials Anyone?

Israel has a number of highly trained, specialized, battle proven units. Why no mention in this Special Forces article.? Historygypsy (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL, you are asking for intel on Wikipedia, the number one intelligence psy-op of Israeli cyber-espionage, why they do not reveal the machinery and divisions within their own war machine? Top contributors to Wikipedia, top editors: I dare you to examine their orientation, LOL!

BTW, the Israel SF do exist - and Jabotinsky combined with B. MUSSOLINI, and his militarists, engineered them; specifically, the fascist naval squads created these entities. I imagine the "top-contributing" Likudnik stereotypical Wiki-Israeli user shall delete this information, LOL. X MAS, or Decima Flottiglia MAS, the naval commando anti-partisan unit capable of both sea and land operations, whose skills I daresay outshine any modern special forces unit (!), commanded by (literal) Prince and proud Fascist (and Evolian! EVOLA shall be your DOOM, modern denizen, LOL) Junio Valerio Borghese, is where one should start if interested in researching "Israeli special forces"... Betar Naval Academy, I said it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2013

Please put this photo of russian spetsnaz GRU -

File:Russian Spetsnaz GRU (2008).jpg
Russian Spetsnaz GRU (2008)

.The photo was taken by me.

Aleksey Yermolov (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think this picture really fits into this article. At the moment, the Spetsnaz GRU is only mentioned in this article in the context of World War II, and I don't think a photograph of modern military personnel is the best illustration here. Wikipedia does have an article specifically about the Spetsnaz GRU - you may want to see if it would fit into that article better. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

British history

Has anyone noticed that the history section is only about British special forces, at least in the start? This looks like the "market has been cornered" for the term, and no other than Anglo-Saxon SF could be called "special forces". Similar petty "chauvinism" has been going on in for instance in LRRP (developed by the Finnish Army and transferred to the U.S. via Lauri Törni, and independently by SAS) and "filmjölk" (har har, Swedes think a particular viscosity makes their sour milk so special it needs to be ONLY referred to in Swedish). I am sure stratification of military forces into various levels of "special" has existed since at least Horemheb. For instance, in Finland sissi troops have been around since about late 14th century, and I'm sure they're not the first. --vuo (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation please

Can somebody provide a link to outline a distinct difference in the Russian special forces which makes it unique from all other special forces, and this is the fact that it runs like a wolf pack and is more specialized and can faulter when its alpha male is taken down, where as other special forces are more versitile, my personal preference would be the Russian special forces just for the sheer prestige of it all--Twominds (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_forces/Archive_1&oldid=1083535179"