# Warriors?



## tacsit (19 Aug 2004)

Since I'm not in the military that would make me a civilian, wouldn't it. As opposed to me spending my money as... ???

Michael, warriors come from all walks of life. Doesn't matter if they're soldier or civilians. I know some civvies that are more warrior than some soldiers I've run into (cough, Caroline, cough ).


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2004)

Ii didn't know if you spent that money on training when you were in the army or a civilian thats all. If you were in the army then i would have asked if you did it because you didn't feel like you were getting enough training as a soldier.

I may be hijacking the thread a little (by all means put it back on course if its an issue) but you got me kinda curious.
What is your definition of a Warrior and what qualifies someone for the name?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (19 Aug 2004)

To add to the Ghost's questions, if I may;

How do you tell if a soldier is a warrior?  I know from experience that you can't look at a soldier and tell if he is a warrior or not.

BTW, my definition of a warrior is one who can complete their task, whatever it may be, in conditions of extreme stress( which may include the possibility of injury or death).  I know that this is not everyones definition, but it works for me....


----------



## tacsit (19 Aug 2004)

Oh, I would go and get extra training even if I was still in the CF. Training in the CF and the tactical skills taught are lightyears behind the latest techniques that are out there. It's aboslutely incredible the disservice we are doing to our soldiers by not teaching them the most effective tactical skills.

As for my definition of a warrior it is a bit difficult to put down on paper so I'll take the easy way out and put forth the following which does a good job of describing a warrior: "The warrior protects and defends because he realizes the value of others. He knows that they are essential to society and, in his gift of service, recognizes and values theirs." (Virtue of the Sword, by James Williams). That is the first part. The importance here, lies in the realm of protection and defense. An older brother defends his younger sister. A mother will protect her child. A warrior takes it upon him or herself to defend everybody. That is the warrior's burden and the warrior's gift. There is a second aspect to it. A warrior, as a result of this burden/gift, never stops training and constantly seeks to improve himself in the martial arts. To clarify, when I say martial arts, I mean any such activity relating to the arena of life and death. So not just what people typically think of when they hear martial arts (like karate, jujitsu, etc.), but gunfighting, medical skills, language skills, negotiating, etc. The warrior strives to perfect him or herself into a total weapon. Hands, feet, fingers, toes, knives, guns, sticks, swords, IEDs, pens, flashlights, etc, etc, etc. It is this constant striving to improve himself (along with the protective mindset) which sets a warrior apart from others who also have a mandate to protect society, i.e. law enforcement officers and military pers. I have met many soldiers during my time in the CF, and I continue to meet many more. Yet being a soldier, having that mandate to protect others, does not make one a warrior. Going on the mandated field exercises and doing the drills alone does not make one a warrior. One has to strive beyond that, as much as is possible with the confines of day to day living (obviously this definition of warrior takes into account the fact we can't just up and leave our lives to train 24/7). So to sum up, it is a MINDSET to protect those around you, a MINDSET that YOU WILL NOT FAIL, and a MINDSET to constantly improve one's skills that makes one a warrior. That is why warriors can come from all walks of life. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. It doesn't matter if you're a construction lawyer, Bay St. accountant or a police officer. As John Steinbeck said, the final weapon is the mind, and that is the primary deciding factor in warriordom. I hope that was clear. Knowing what you are can be easy yet being able to express it can sometimes be difficult. If anything here was not clear just ask, I'll try to set my addled brain straight and make things easier to understand.


----------



## Techy25 (19 Aug 2004)

So tacsit let me get this straight have you ever been in the Canadian Forces? and if so what was your MOC?


----------



## RCA (19 Aug 2004)

Please expand on "gunfighting skills". I'm not quite familiar with the term.


----------



## tacsit (19 Aug 2004)

Techy25, I was in the Royal Regiment of Canada for a couple of years, R031.

RCA, gunfighting is just a blanket term for things like weapons handling, CQB techniques, shooting and moving, fire and movement, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2004)

Thats a pretty good definition of a warrior.  I really liked it and think i might try to apply it in the future. I remember seeing pretty much the exact same definition on a thread at the lightfighter forum maybe a year or two ago. Lots of the same wording (anyone know if their still up?) They had some pretty good posts over there. I remember we had a thread about the warrior mindset a while ago here as well.

I've always found a big crutch with reserve training (maybe a bit of the regs) is that each time you go somewhere and theres an SME about, they all seem to teach you some different new way of doing things. CQB/FISH training has to be the worst offender. Use 2 men. Use 4 men.  The JTF do it like this, the navy seals do it like that. Leave a guy on ever corner, don't leave guys behind you. Even on brigade excersises it seems like companies have different ways of doing things as well as each platoon. Somtimes it works, sometimes it creates friction.

$5000 worth of training seems like a lot. If you don't mind me asking, what did you spend that money on? Like what kinda courses and training did you get? I'd imagine some members here might even be interested in taking something that catches their eye. (that you have taken)
You said the training out there  is light years ahead of what the CF teaches. Could you give some examples of how and why the training you recieved is better than what you learned in the CF?


----------



## RCA (19 Aug 2004)

Excuse me, I'm just a poor Gunner, but please explain the difference between shooting and moving, & fire and movement.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2004)

I think your letting your definition of "warrior" get to your head.

I understand your admiration of a particular mindset dedicated to excellence, but you must understand that this mindset is one of dedication to excellence in the profession of arms

Your definition of the term warrior is a bit misplaced.   The "warrior" is traditionally defined as a subculture that dedicates itself solely to battle.   However, the warrior is an individual who places emphasis on personal ability and prowess in battle.   There are many aspects that typified the warrior in battle such as highly valued personal weapons, individual combate, and reliance on ferocity and fighting prowess over tactics.

Your impression of the warrior as the pinnacle of armed conflict is unfortunately misplaced.   The "warrior" lost his standing over two thousand years ago when the professional soldier picked up arms under their commanders and worked as a unit to overcome the individual warriors.   Two of the earliest examples in Western civilization is when the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, picked up arms as _professionals_ and worked as an amorphous unit known as the phalanx, to defeat 10,000 of the Persian King's elite "Immortals".   To the Greek professionals, maintaining one's position within the phalanx in order to protect the man to his right with his large shield was the epitome of excellence in battle as opposed to breaking ranks to find personal glory in singular combat (something that was severely frowned upon).   That trend carried on in Western civilization when Celtic warriors were subdued by the professional soldier of Rome, the Legionnaire, who followed his NCO commander, the Centurion (Yes, setbacks against warrior cultures such as the German tribes were present, but this was no fault of their military system).

History is full of examples of the elite "warrior" finding his social position toppled by the professional soldier who was simply a better fighter due to the fact that they dedicated themselves to the profession of arms rather then to the glory of combat.   The Japanese Samurai warrior were shot to pieces in the 1800's when they tried to bring their quasi-religious form of ritual battle to the fore against industrialized forces; this is why the Samurai class outlawed the firearms in the 1600's following Oda Nobunaga's destruction of samurai armies with conscript levies wielding cheap firearms; it was a threat to their inefficent and less effective warrior culture.   As well, the constant battles between various Native American tribes and the United States Army in the 1800's also saw the Native warrior destroyed by the disciplined regular.   Napoleon's professional Army, in its conquest of Egypt, decimated the Mameluke's; a Islamic subculture that dedicated its members from birth to being warriors.   That belief fell to the discipline and shock of the Regiment of the Line.    You could find many more examples if you took the time to truly study the history of conflict.

Those characteristics that you mentioned in you inaccurate depiction of the warrior are actually the signs of the highest form of dedication as a soldier to the profession of arms.   Look at the characteristics of our soldiers in our Special Operations Capable unit (JTF-2), whom I would regard as the elite of the professional soldier in a modern army; these men are not warriors, they do not relish personal combat and glory for their subculture.   Rather, they are the epitomization of what we should strive for as professionals; they are experts on all technical fields related to the trade, their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that), and their dedication to their profession, up to the point of sacrificing their own life, is unrivaled (hence the reason they spend nearly all their time to preparation and training).

I would encourage you to rethink your defintion of excellence in the profession of arms and how you look upon others who serve in the Army.   You adherence to the term "warrior" is incorrect and tends to shun what is central to the excellence of the modern soldier, his professional dedication to art and science of armed conflict.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Aug 2004)

Infanteer, can we break away this outstanding discussion on the warrior culture to continue on another thread, and get away from the chest rig topic?

Unless there is more to add about the chest rig...

I put forth the motion for *STAT*


----------



## tacsit (19 Aug 2004)

Ghost778, there have been many threads about the concept of warrior on the LF forums, though what I typed wasn't copied from any source (save for the quote). Sent you a PM btw. That $5000 wasn't just courses, but ammo for the courses, ammo for shooting here in TO, paying for martial arts/combatives training, etc. Unfortunately it all adds up pretty quick. If anybody has the opportunity though, I highly recommend a US company known as Tactical Repsonse Inc. Top notch training and the instructors are superb.

RCA, shooting and moving is shooting your weapon while you are moving. The term fire and movement is generally accepted to mean the infantry tactic of one person or a small team moving while being covered by another person or another small team. Sorry for the confusion.

Infanteer, I believe you have misunderstood the orientation and basis of my beliefs. You bring up the point of the traditional definition of warrior. As you'll see in my post, I rendered my own definition, hence my POV. I am well aware of the history of the samurai, and the development of the modern day professional soldier. This is nothing new to me. Your arguments have a flaw however. You mistakenly assume that because previous warrior cultures (or sub-sects of certain societies) were beaten by groupings of professional soldiers, it is due solely to the fact that one group saw itself as professional soldiers, and the other saw themselves as warriors. This is incorrect. For example, the samurai were defeated because they chose not to use firearms and thus train in their use and learn tactics suited to them, not because they were warriors. Yes, I know that it was because of their warrior beliefs that they chose not to use firearms, but that does not equate to them being warriors is why they failed, it equates to them not having a flexible viewpoint of warriordom being the reason they were defeated. I agree that several principles upheld by warriors throughout the ages (as well as the principles upheld by my own personal definition of warrior) are shared by professional soldiers. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is your notion that all warriors, "relish personal combat and glory for their subculture." That was true of the samurai. That was true of other warrior cultures. That is not true of me or my definition of a warrior. I'll share with you a quote near and dear to my heart which lies in symbiosis with my definition of a warrior. I paraphrase here because the exact words seem to escape me at the moment. "A warrior does not seek a battle, to fight. Rather he believes that there are some causes worth giving one's all for." I don't seek battle. I don't want to fight. But I train, and I train, and I train in case, god forbid, the time comes when those skills would be needed. Because if those skills are needed, they are needed direly.

I think I can tell what your problem here is. You have completely skipped over my personal definition of warriodom, and applied historical examples to my character. That is absolutely incorrect and one could see that by checking my definition. I would also like to point out that I said that was my own definition. Different people see things differently, but the way of the warrior how I see it is how I live my life. Your comment, "...their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that..." troubles me. You seem to believe that because I think I am a warrior I cannot work well in a team oriented setting. Why? Because the samurai worked as individual warriors? Because other previous warrior cultures did? I have news for you, I am not Samurai, nor do I label myself a warrior from any other culture. You said yourself, that central to the excellent of the modern soldier is his dedication to the, "...art and science of armed conflict." That's exactly what I have. That's why I train ceaselessly. I don't consider myself part of an elite social sub-sect either. I consider myself prigileged enough to partake in the community of warriors, to learn from them, to dispense the miniscule amount of knowledge I have managed to attain over my brief time on this planet, and to enjoy the company of like minded people. I am no more, no less than those I protect. I would advise you to reread my previous post and stop applying historical definitions, attitudes, and cultural beliefs onto me, because you will find yourself, as you are now, way off the mark.

Edit to add: BTW, the Spartans viewed themselves as warriors and citizen soldiers, not as our current definition of professional soldiers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2004)

After reading Infanteers post i got a very good insight as to the differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Professional soldier'. I liked the historical examples too. A very great post IMHO.  I think there may be a way you can apply the mind set of personal excellence (what tacist was eluding to i think) to being a professional soldier.
The important part being your goal is to better the team over all vice just yourself.
Armymedic is right though, probably best to start a new thread about it.


----------



## combat_medic (19 Aug 2004)

tacsit: So, you're not a soldier, and so you spent $5,000 in training and $500 in gear to do the job of unarmed security in Canada? How on earth is a tac vest, or fire and movement skills in any way relevant to someone who isn't even a serving soldier? Unless you're a police officer, sherriff or armoured car operator, you aren't legally allowed to carry a handgun in public. What possible job training skills could firearms have for you?  I'm not sure if you think you're some kind of solo commando doing Rambo-esque black ops in the Middle East, but there is no such thing as a "Warrior" by your definition any longer. To what "community of warriors" do you belong? What group of people do you profess to protect? 

By your posts and professed "experience", you sound like a kid who played soldier as a kid, and is now trying to play soldier as an adult; purchasing weapons, combat training, purchasing military gear, etc., with no intention of actually becoming a soldier, other than spending a couple years in the MO. Are you planning to join a foreign military or re-join the CF? If not, then your $5,500 is nothing more than an expensive hobby. 

Oh, and no one I've ever encountered in my military training or civilian firearms courses has ever referred to "shooting and moving" as a valid term of firing a weapon while in motion.


----------



## Fusaki (20 Aug 2004)

combat medic is asking some good questions. tacsit, here's just a taste of what you've posted on this forum:



> I do work in the private sector that has given me opportunities to do interesting things in interesting places, mostly on the green side thus far (hence why I have no black rig as of yet).


http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.0.html



> it wasn't in Canada (obviously not, what with the mag restrictions here), and the ammo loadout for this rig is predicated on two jobs that I have done (different rig, my 82 pattern webbing actually) and two jobs that I will be doing, one in 5 months, the other in 12. None have been through actual companies though I still refer to them as civvy jobs because they aren't military (obviosuly). I will readily admit that luckily in neither of the past two greenish jobs was I directly shot at, so I hold no claim to fame or any such thing.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.30.html



> Mil Exp:  2 years in the Mo, various private security/CPP jobs


http://army.ca/forums/members/3703



> I don't want the only manuever I can do to be advance to ambush.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/18226.0.html



> I'm saying that the standard set forth by 3VP in Astan is the proper yardstick to use WRT non-issue kit.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/18144.15.html



> I've been studying small unit warfare and military history since the age of 10. I'm 20 right now and have just served a couple of years in the Royal Regiment of Canada before releasing to focus exclusively on schoolwork as well as private security work in Toronto.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/16771.15.html#msg76417

So let me get this straight...  Your current line of work involves doing Close Personal Protection, and other Private Security. You have already been on two different jobs overseas that required you to have at the very least 7 mags, as well as military style web gear and a ruck. Your line of work could potentially include armed offensive action. But you are only 20 years old and your REAL military experience is only 2 years in the Militia? I gotta say, man, my spider sense is tingleing. Are you trying to say you're a mercenary? Some sort of soldier of fortune? For a 20 year old this is way too much to believe. I mean, where do you get off citing 3VP's Afghanistan gear as what should be the Army standard? Were you in Afghanistan? Did you read about it in a book? You've dropped enough hints about your current occupation that any attempt to maintain a low profile is now worthless. Anyone serious about personal security wouldn't do that.

To put it bluntly: I smell bullshit.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Aug 2004)

Tacsit _et. sum al_: upon serious retro-flection, and at the risk of droppin' the pin where ships could not/should not float, I can't help but wonder whether you are advancing (1) a warrior thesis in which you believe over   (2) a creed with a collateral belief in the "warrior." Both have merit, and have deeply rooted honour, but i'm gonna get behind Infanteer & Coy. here: too many beliefs have been slayed under the dispassionate sword of hard hearted professional soldiers over the past 15-20 centuries.   Nevertheless, great posts overall by all!!!


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2004)

tacsit said:
			
		

> Training in the CF and the tactical skills taught are lightyears behind the latest techniques that are out there.



Daniel - I have layed off most of yor post but you have gone beyond the pale with me here.  WHO the FUCK do you think you are?

You just jumped into my biggest idiot list with that post.  How would you know what the skill training level of the CF is at..

I have half a mind to go over to Lightfighter and lay into to you there.

If you actually served in an operational unit - you woudl have access to a surprisingly high level of training.  I put way more than 20k of round down range last year - live fire kill house entry - precision DA mission (live) - force on force simuntion trg and more.
                  
I will break a small bit of OPSEC - but our SOF guys are the BEST out there - even ask the Brits and US CAG guys and their will admit the DH Ski team is the varsity for HR missions -- guess what they train reg force 031's.

 Just because you did not like you year or two in the MO does not give a lease on life for you to go around and blast the CF, of which you dont have a fricking clue about.

Caroline might be a bin rat and RTFO on kit - but guess what -he/she/it is serving and you are not.

 Grow The F up - 

Kevin


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Aug 2004)

I think that we all need to slow down and do a bit of self-reflection here...

Tacsit, you've just stuck your arm up in the hornet's nest and are getting stung hard.  You're a good guy and you have your heart in the right place, but Kevin's got a pretty good point.  2 years in the militia don't really qualify as that much experience in the CFs, especially if you never did an operations cycle.  Sometimes it's much better to sit back and take stuff in, rather than rattle off opinions which the basis of is sometimes groundless.

I agree on alot of points.  The CFs suffers from a lack of money to train all of its soldiers to the standards which they deserve and the political will to change the situation.  That's a big reason why I emigrated to the US and became a Marine. All too often only units that are slated to be operational are given the necessary resources to do their jobs.  However, I don't think that 2 years in the reserves and some time in cadets qualify you as a "warrior" even by your own definition.

Every time you mention the word "warrior" the image of some fur loincloth clad battle-axe conan-looking barbarian comes to mind.  Personally, I think warrior is a cheesy term, but we're all entitled to different opinions.  Just keep in mind that when you like to put your opinion forth in the manner that you do, you may have some serious questioning as a result.

I'd suggest that you get back in the CFs or join a foreign military (the Brit's take commonwealth citizens, and there's always the Legion).  That way you can really get the necessary experience to qualify yourself on the arguments you make.


----------



## MG34 (20 Aug 2004)

Tacsit,you are so full of crap your eyes must be brown. At the risk of being banned or whatever this clown is so full of it it makes me sick. I have it on good information that during a firearms course about a month ago he was almost booted off the course for major safety infractions including pointing a pistol at other students on the range (known as sweeping) and for not listening to the word of command on the range.(loading not once but twice when not ordered to on a live range). Hmm so much for the $5000.00 spent on training,where was that you did this training anyways?? The Mickey mouse School of Gunfight'n?
 he has the gall to criticize CF training yet it seems he couldn't zero a rife at 25 yds,committed various safety infractions and was almost booted offof the course.
You may think you are a warrior but buddy you are the worst kind of poser there is,go tell your stories to the kids in the playground.


----------



## Travis (20 Aug 2004)

To me the definition of a warrior is simple.  Heres what someone has already said better than me. A warrior and a soldier Can be a very differnt thing. 


"In every culture around the world, there have been plenty of men and women willing to fight anyone, anything, any time, anywhere.  In ancient civilizations as well as today, a warrior stands apart from everyone else around them.  A person who has dedicated his life to the art of combat, of going out and defeating a for by whatever means necessary, a warrior has a philosophy of lie and death differnt from anyone else in the world. 
  For there can be no doubt that when a warrior takes up his sword, bow, or rifle, that he is picking up whatever weapon he uses with one goal in mind - to kill.  Once battle is entered he does what he has been trained to do.   The samurai of feudal Japan understood this better than any civilization before them, and were therefore able to train their warriors to go into battle expecting to die, fighting each battle as though it was their last, thereby conquering their fear of death.  When a warrior no longer fears his own demise, he is beyound worrying about keeping himself alive, and is free to concentrate solely upon combat.  It is this single-minded dedication, the willingness to go forth into battle knowing that he might not come back, that sets the warrior apart. 
  But combat is just one aspect of the warrior's art.  A true warrior is also a master of strategy and tactics, choosing not only which battles to fight, but where, when, and how to fight them.  A warrior can also become a leader of men, and accomplish more in that role than he could in an entire life-time of simply fighting. "


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Every time you mention the word "warrior" the image of some fur loincloth clad battle-axe conan-looking barbarian comes to mind. Personally, I think warrior is a cheesy term, but we're all entitled to different opinions. Just keep in mind that when you like to put your opinion forth in the manner that you do, you may have some serious questioning as a result.



I have a slightly diffrent version of a "warrior". To me, a warrior is some one who continues to fight against insurmountable odds, or continues to push against absurdly adverse conditions in order to succeed. Example of a few....Terry Fox, every child diagnosed with cancer, every parent of one of those children, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela...

So that being said, when someone says someone has a warrior mentality, or sports announcers say that athletes are warriors.....this is the definition I conjure. 

I may be a warrior, but to me that is a descriptive noun only appropriate for someone else to use....


----------



## Gun Shy (21 Aug 2004)

You've seemed to have acomplished must more then the average 10 year veteran soldier who is currently serving in the JTF.


----------



## tacsit (21 Aug 2004)

Gentlemen, many here have seemed to think that standing around with a few mags, frags, and a long gun in a forest doing nothing is some how my idea of HSLD ops. Not in the slightest. I'm not going to get into a huge pissing match arguing and debating every point brought against me. I apologize outright at some of my comments, as a couple were uninformed, and a couple I can see are very easily misinterpreted. My intention was never to stir up some shit, and I hope you understand that. Arguing on the net is like competing in the special olympics. I don't have the time or energy to get involved. Either believe me, or don't. If you'd like me to remove myself from the board I will do so. I believe that if you come into somebody's house and step on their toes, even accidentally, you should remove yourself. I do however, think that there is much for me to learn at this site and I would like to contribute in a small way from time to time. Thank you, take care, and stay safe.


----------



## from darkness lite (21 Aug 2004)

"Gentlemen, many here have seemed to think that standing around with a few mags, frags, and a long gun in a forest doing nothing is some how my idea of HSLD ops"

Huh?  Is that what you think my life/profession is?? Based on what, your 2 years as a Pte(B) in the Mo??  I've lost count of the high-risk cordon and searchs, staring down some a**hole warlord and his drunken troops, taking fire (and returning) and REAL Ops our troops have down over the last 12 years!!!!  I've/we have done very little "standing around the woods" ops, I can count them on both hands!!!! I'd take a section from 3VP or JTF and put them against your "high speed warriors" any day!!!!  Our discipline, teamwork, professionalism and skill is why we have always completed our missions over those last 12 years!!!!

WO


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2004)

I think there is a way to apply a sort of "warrior mindset" with being a professional soldier. (as such combining two of the posts here)
 Borrowing some points in point form from tacsit's post, i think these qualities make for a very effective soldier.

-The warrior protects and defends because he realizes the value of others.  
How true is this overseas? It's easy to deploy somewhere and not give a shit. We've all worked with some of these types. "i don't care about these people, i'm not giving them shit unless I'm ordered." It's really something else when a soldiers heart is in what he's doing.

-A warrior, never stops training and constantly seeks to improve himself in the martial arts.
A soldier should always do this. Always work at being more physically fit, more deadly with weapons, keep up to date on medical training and keep up to date in world events.

-The warrior strives to perfect him or herself into a total weapon.
Soldiers in an infantry section, armored crew or gun team (crew?) should strive to perfect their fighting so them come across like a weapon. Through constant training they all start to think and act as one.

-a mandate to protect society
We all know the world is interconnected. What happens in iraq, effects us here in north america.  Part of protecting the home front is sending soldiers abroad.

-MINDSET that YOU WILL NOT FAIL
Just like the USMC, all soldiers should have this mindset.

The historical example of a warrior isn't something we should strive for in the military.  Olympic athletes, boxers, martial artists. Stuff like that it can apply to but as Infanteer pointed out, in a warefare aspect, trained soldiers will defeat warriors always.
I think it's possible (critical?) to apply apply some of the mentioned points which some see as a "warrior mindset" to the mindset of a professional soldier.

I've seen some soldiers I consider warriors. These are the soldiers that simply seem to have an aura of professionalism about them. You ask them a question and they politely answer you not as a teacher talking to a student but as an enthusiast. It's like asking a die hard sports fan a question and you can tell they can't wait to answer and they really get into it because they simply love the sport.
When we hear warrior i think we often see them as a fighting type person.  An army medic who really cares for the troops, a non BS pilot or a supply tech warrant who makes sure the troops get what they need all strike me as "warriors" in that they are professional and care more for getting the job done than how they look.


----------



## tacsit (21 Aug 2004)

darkness lite, no no no, not what I meant. I meant that's what I did during both of the out of country jobs I was on. It was nothing special, that's what I'm trying to say. All I did was stay in a single spot for a couple days in the woods with some mags, frags, and a long gun. Nothing special. I was in NO WAY referring to what soldiers do on a regular basis. What I'm saying is that some have accused me of being a wannabe commando or whatnot, but for that to be the case, I'd have to think the jobs I've done are some kind of HSLD type shit, when they really weren't, that's all I was saying.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2004)

Well, Tacsit's personal conceptions of his own status aside, I think there are some interesting issues that need to be addressed here.   Since I was away for a bit, you'll have to bear with me while I retrace the argument.

Tacsit:



> Your arguments have a flaw however. You mistakenly assume that because previous warrior cultures (or sub-sects of certain societies) were beaten by groupings of professional soldiers, it is due solely to the fact that one group saw itself as professional soldiers, and the other saw themselves as warriors.



I don't see the central thesis to my argument proposed this way; if that's how you want to interpret it, then you should go over my post again.   The point I argued is that societies that adopted a "warrior's" outlook on conflict and organized their culture towards that end have been constantly outfought by societies that adopted the outlook of war as an organized form of human interaction and applied rational approaches of professional techniques and organization to succeed; thus facilitating the creation of the profession of arms to master these outlooks.   I never argued that "warriors" were beat because they saw themselves as warriors, rather I state that the defining feature of warrior societies is to view warfare as a highly personalized and individual affair, and I contend that this is an amateur view as opposed to the professional one   that holds warfare as an organized activity. 



> For example, the samurai were defeated because they chose not to use firearms and thus train in their use and learn tactics suited to them, not because they were warriors. Yes, I know that it was because of their warrior beliefs that they chose not to use firearms, but that does not equate to them being warriors is why they failed, it equates to them not having a flexible viewpoint of warriordom being the reason they were defeated.



You place too much emphasis in the equipment fighters choose to use; the central issue is cultural and organizational.   Samurai were defeated because their warrior outlook did not allow them to view warfare as an organized system of competing groups of people (with all the inherent ideas of tactics, casualties, terrain, etc).   Rather, the "warrior" culture of the Samurai left them to view combat as an intensely personal thing, nearing a religious nature.   They relished personal combat and felt social status was a central to the belonging to the warrior class.   Even if the Samurai were flexible and chose to arm themselves with firearms, their "warrior" outlook did not give their sub-culture the ability to organize effectively to utilize the effects of a musket or rifle (or cannon or machine gun).   A mounted Samurai, with his highly specialized weapons and armour, his high degree of training, and his code of _Bushido_, was a force defined by a cultural system; a cultural system that was rendered irrelevant by the drilled and cohesive professional soldier.



> What I do dispute is your notion that all warriors, "relish personal combat and glory for their subculture." That was true of the samurai. That was true of other warrior cultures. That is not true of me or my definition of a warrior.



You dispute my defintion of a central aspect of the "warrior" culture and yet admit that my definition can correctly describe the most prominent examples of warriors in history and that your definition of a warrior is different.   Are you simply making up your own definition of the term warrior?   Should the Army make a new slogan for you, the "Warrior of One"?
Obviously not.   However, the reason I am disputing your opinions and claims of a "warrior culture" is that I believe you are taking an inappropriate approach into understanding where the best aspects of the profession of arms exhibited in modern military forces is derived from.



> I think I can tell what your problem here is. You have completely skipped over my personal definition of warriodom, and applied historical examples to my character. That is absolutely incorrect and one could see that by checking my definition. I would also like to point out that I said that was my own definition.



No, you gave a quote from a book that was from a genre that derives heavily from historical aspects of warrior cultures.   Going on the cut-and-pasted defintion you gave us, I could only assume that most of your ideas come from past warrior philosophies.   If, as your claim, your definition of your own "warrior" status is vastly different then the others that have come before it, is it necessarily a warrior culture then?



> Different people see things differently, but the way of the warrior how I see it is how I live my life. Your comment, "...their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that..." troubles me. You seem to believe that because I think I am a warrior I cannot work well in a team oriented setting. Why? Because the samurai worked as individual warriors? Because other previous warrior cultures did? I have news for you, I am not Samurai, nor do I label myself a warrior from any other culture. You said yourself, that central to the excellent of the modern soldier is his dedication to the, "...art and science of armed conflict." That's exactly what I have.



Yes, different people see things differently; but it does not change the fact that there are inherent characteristics of human activity (warfare included) which cross the boundaries of cultural interpration.   No matter how "perfect" one's society may see its form of fighting culture, it can be easily outdone by another which organizes itself to understand and adapt around these inherent characteristics better.   The reason I am drawing an issue with your statement is because you seem to have a confused and misrepresented idea of the nature of the profession of arms due to convoluted half-truths that many, who seem to delight in the fact that the "warrior culture" is en vogue.   I am disputing this outlook because I believe that ascribing to the tenets of a "warrior" subculture only detracts from the professionalism of our military.   

You state that you've *"met many soldiers, but not all of them are warriors."*   Going by your definition, they are not warriors because they do not dedicate themselves to turning a pen into a weapon and mastering all forms of martial combat.   This is a dangerous attitude that is quite frankly, unprofessional.   It leads to an elitist impression of one's own position within the military and breeds contempt for those perceived as "non-warriors."   The ultimate result is a breakdown of discipline and cohesion, and a loss of the professionalism that deprives us of our excellence in the profession of arms.

Ultimately, it is professionalism that leads to excellence in the battle.   Look at the Blackhawk pilots (some who perished), the PJ Combat Search and Rescue techs, and the others who took part in the Battle of Mogadishu.   They were not warriors, especially by your definition of the term.   They were professionals in all sense of the word, performing their tasks expertly for the professional goal of accomplishing the mission.   Even Randy Shugart and Gary Gorden, who descended into the maelstrom to protect a downed helicopter, were not warriors; they were common men who personified the definition of the professional soldier, and ultimately gave their lives in doing so (which is not a trait unique to "warrior cultures"; I would contend that the threat of injury or death forces this mindset onto all who would enter into battle.   Those who ignore it are simply unprofessional).



> I consider myself prigileged enough to partake in the community of warriors, to learn from them, to dispense the miniscule amount of knowledge I have managed to attain over my brief time on this planet, and to enjoy the company of like minded people. I am no more, no less than those I protect. I would advise you to reread my previous post and stop applying historical definitions, attitudes, and cultural beliefs onto me, because you will find yourself, as you are now, way off the mark.



I don't question your motives, only your methods.   You seek to build the abilities of an expert of the profession of arms, which is something we all wish to do.   It is my opinion that by feeling that you can do so through adopting some (historically) unrealistic and ineffective mindset, building some snazzy gear, and taking a few weapons handling courses, you are ignoring the hallmark sacrifices that professionals must make.   Perhaps your should put your little privately funded "green ops" warrior career on halt and march down to the local CFRC and sign a three year basic engagement.   Perhaps after then, we'd be more interested in hearing your thoughts on the real nuts-and-bolts of the issue, the profession of arms.



> Edit to add: BTW, the Spartans viewed themselves as warriors and citizen soldiers, not as our current definition of professional soldiers.



We don't really know how the "Spartan's viewed themselves" because they left scant historical records.   You are subscribing to the Spartan myth, which was largely perpetuated because most of what we know of Sparta comes to us from those (mostly Athenians) who were critical of a free and open democratic system and saw the Spartan's martial system as the desired alternative.

In reality, the Spartans practiced warfare just like the rest of the Greeks, who by necessity moved from a formless mob of spearmen to a professional group of soldiers and sailors (the Athenian Navy should be included in this discussion) who made the profession of arms their calling in order to defeat invading Persians and expand the interests of their own _polis_ (city-state).   Although I don't believe the Greeks were the first clear cut example of a professional fighting force in Western Civilization (that would be the Romans), the influence of Hellenic culture on the way Rome organized for war was so important that I felt it was necessary to include.

Travis:

I'd argue that your cut-and-pasted example has mixed elements of both "warrior" and "professional" into one definition and is historically incorrect.    The statement, especially the last sentence, contains elements that were not inherent to any historical warrior societies.   Although these societies may have been blessed from time-to-time with leaders possessing innate genius in conducting war, their pattern of believes and their warrior system was devoid of the ability to institutionalize this excellence through professionalization.

Armymedic:

Your defintion of the term "warrior" is heavily rooted upon the characteristics of courage and unshakable determination.   These traits are essential for the success of the people you mentioned, but their application of these characteristics does not make them "warriors" or "professional soldiers".   Rather, I would contend that these characteristics must be inculcated into fighters, whether they be warriors or professional soldiers, to be able to stand the psychological trauma that exists in armed combat.

Despite what some definitons, such as Tacsit's, which would attribute the personal traits of courage and determination to those soldiers who possess a "warrior spirit", I believe that this is incorrect.   The warrior has no   monopoly over these traits; a band of Samurai warriors can possess them to bravely charge a formed body of riflemen just as the professional soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, PPCLI, could risk encirclement by superior Chinese forces in order to hold a strategic hill at Kap'Yong in order to allow their fellow comrades to escape destruction.

Ghost:

You have attributed the status of warrior to those who excel at the profession of arms, which contains a variety of disciplines, not all of which deal directly with combat.   Although "warrior" is a nice, symbolic word to attach to them, I feel it is historically incorrect and that these soldiers are *professionals*.

The bottom line is, I'm not picking an argument with Tacsit's "warrior code" to try and come off as a history buff or to battle semantics with loosely defined words.   I am doing this so that we may understand that excellence or failure for both individual soldiers and the units they serve in is dependent upon the motivation and ability to strive to maximize our professionalism.   

Some may argue that a "warrior code" is the necessary tool to do so; I say no as it takes us down a dangerous road of unprofessionalism.   This "elitism" and "warrior mentality" seems to have contributed to the breakdown in professionalism up and down the ranks in certain parts of our Airborne Regiment with the end result of Confederate Flags, burning NCO's vehicles, and orders to "shoot them between the skirt and the flip-flops" (If any who served in the Airborne feel this is an incorrect evaluation, please do correct me).

We need to understand that true "eliteness", true excellence, comes through development of the profession of arms that is guided through an effective and important professional ethos (what Whiskey attributed to as Honour).   Only by doing this can we ensure that our excellence in the profession of arms is heading in the right direction, the direction of ensuring that *all* soldiers of our Armed Forces are able to effectively contribute to victory in war.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2004)

> Ghost-You have attributed the status of warrior to those who excel at the profession of arms, which contains a variety of disciplines, not all of which deal directly with combat.   Although "warrior" is a nice, symbolic word to attach to them, I feel it is historically incorrect and that these soldiers are professionals.



I agree 100%.   Professional soldier seems to fit the bill more. maybe warrior is just used by people who haven't really debated it?

Tacsit,
I've had about my fill of your military green ops experience, the subtle wink wink nod nod you do when talking about your "private security work" and your super kit that will have you carrying on through all stages of WW3.
I think you have a huge persona built up about yourself in your head and your putting the cart pretty far ahead of the horse.

Unless you break a rule laid down by the staff I don't think anyone has the right to tell you to leave. It's a public forum. People of course can reccomend you share your opinion elsewhere and like it;s done in the army when your dealing with someone who just won't be a team player, you turn your back on them and wait for them to go away. I'm not going to take any posts from you very seriously in the future unless you pull off a more convincing change of attitude than saddam hussain does in south park the movie.


----------



## combat_medic (21 Aug 2004)

Tacsit: So you're saying that once or twice you spent a couple of days in a forest with a weapon, in a location other then Canada (outisde your Pte (B) experience with the mo), and THIS is your "community of warriors"? THIS is what necessitated five thousand dollars of personal expenditures on weapons training (although, according to eyewitnesses, you were in very dire need)? You're handing out advice on military equipment, special forces training, weaponry and tactics and all you have is a year or two as an untrained militia private, and four days sitting on your arse in a forest somewhere?!

I think you've stepped on pretty much everyone's toes on this site, and no one here thinks any more of your 'credentials' than to be a loud-mouthed kid who has read "Soldier of Fortune" one too many times and thinks he's hot $hit. If you need an excuse to leave this board, by all means take it! There is no one left who believes what you have to say, and you have lost anyl credibility you might have had.


----------



## Fusaki (22 Aug 2004)

Tacsit, I think its time to leave... and don't let the door hit your ***.

This should keep you busy until your next secret mission: http://www.msu.edu/~couilla3/ninja/seppuku.htm


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Aug 2004)

Ghostwalk said:
			
		

> Tacsit, I think its time to leave... and don't let the door hit your ***.
> 
> This should keep you busy until your next secret mission: http://www.msu.edu/~couilla3/ninja/seppuku.htm



Ghostwalk, that link was so cool it made me want to flip out, kick my mom in the face, totally uppercut someone and then wail on my guitar.  Please stop making reference to it - frankly, I just don't have the energy for all that.

And by cool, I mean totally sweet.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

tacsit said:
			
		

> that's what I did during both of the out of country jobs I was on. It was nothing special, that's what I'm trying to say. All I did was stay in a single spot for a couple days in the woods with some mags, frags, and a long gun.


in what country(ies)?
were you doing this legally?

If you left the reserves to allow time to focus on school, where did you find time to start attending civi-commando schools & go on "green ops?"

In another post you mentioned dealing with an IED.  Where were you trained to do this?


----------



## Fusaki (22 Aug 2004)

> Quote from: tacsit on Yesterday at 19:15:44
> that's what I did during both of the out of country jobs I was on. It was nothing special, that's what I'm trying to say. All I did was stay in a single spot for a couple days in the woods with some mags, frags, and a long gun.
> in what country(ies)?
> were you doing this legally?



Man, he's bullshitting. A canadian citizen wearing CADPAT gear working as a hired gun overseas? If he is what he says he is, there is NO WAY he'd post something like that on an internet forum. Thats an international incident waiting to happen and anyone who was into doing stuff like that would NOT mention it in a place like this.

Yard Ape, if he tells you he'll probably have to kill you.


----------



## from darkness lite (22 Aug 2004)

"were you doing this legally? If you left the reserves to allow time to focus on school, where did you find time to start attending civi-commando schools & go on "green ops?"

My sentiments exactly.   So you're 20, 2 years in the Mo, a student, have gone on Ops with frags (pretty certain they're illegal outside the military, and police for the stun type!!), etc, etc.   My, my, my, when do you sleep!!!!!   So if you joined the Mo at 16, you're out at 18, 2 years of Ops and now a student, does that sound about right????   BS!!!!!   My son can put a more coherent "story" together.   I wouldn't hire an 18 year old to do Mall Cop work, let alone Security type ops (Sorry to those 18 year olds with their s*** together!!).   Most of our soldiers join when they're older than 18 and require 2 and half years trg before they're called Pte trained.   No Cdn soldier who IS 18 would ever dare claim to be an expert, they know they have a lot to learn, as do all Pte's, hench why they have Section Commanders!!! Hell, I'm still learning s**t!!

Go back to reading SOF.

WO


----------



## Scott (22 Aug 2004)

tacist, you are not worth me typing a long, well thought out post.

Do us all a favour and go read the conduct guidelines, specifically where it talks about "inflating your military experience" Who do you think you're posting among here? I don't have the experience to wade into this fray too heavily, at least I've got the balls to say it.


----------



## DropZone (22 Aug 2004)

Gentlemen,

I think it is time for the bloodletting to stop. I am sure Tacsit has learned his lesson and will no longer embellish his accomplishments. 

So that you all may know where I am coming from, I will mention that I have been in the tactical/military industry as a participant since 1977 and been self employed in it since 1981. 

I will not be so quick to judge Tacsits claims as other have been. To illustrate my point, the young sixteen year old that works for me just completed 8 months of close protection training that ranged from battle wound care to live fire counter ambush drills from vehicles. Would I trust this young man in combat? Well that would be pushing it as he is still just sixteen. (Mind you he was able to hold his own when serving members within the CF were struggling) Is he capable of talking a good story from a position of knowledge? Absolutely. Could he contribute interesting posts. Yes. Would he embellish this unusual accomplishment of a 16 year old. NO! He knows better, that is the way he was taught.

Ii is my opinion that about the only thing Tactsit is truly guilty of is letting enthusiasm and youthful exuberance get the best of sound judgement. I for one have enjoyed reading many of his views on gear and tended to give many of his other points the skepticism the probably deserved.

One point I will say that maybe unpopular with many on this board is: Do not think for a minute that being a serving member of the CF gives automatic claim to having some divine right to a higher position in the pecking order. Contrary to what I have read in the few weeks I have been a member on this board, membership DOES NOT HAVE ITS PRIVILEGES. Only performance counts! I have met many who are serving members who are extremely good soldiers that deserve the highest respect. I have also met many who in my educated view deserve to be kicked out of the CF. I have even met some scum who I feel require a 9mm lobotomy. I have also met security operators that have entered through the industry back door(ie. no formal military/police training) that could teach many who serve in ours, the U.S., or Brit armed forces a thing or two.

Being on the supply side for nearly a quarter century I have had the opportunity to spend time laughing and joking with Generals on the grenade range and the good fortune to knock back brews with the Junior Ranks. I have made many friends and contacts. I have dealt with men who I met as junior officers that have risen to the position of DCO. Hell, even my rigger retired with damn near thirty years in.The point I am making here is that with nearly 25 years of making contacts I have heard many things that perhaps I should have not heard, but have been privy to nonetheless. Let me assure you, not all soldiers/operators/warriors (call them what you may) military or civilian are above reproach. 

I and perhaps others who read these boards may know the real truth :-[

I have heard absolutely fascinating stories from people in authority, about incredibly stupid and embarrassing things pulled by CF members of all ranks and experience, some of whom post on this board and other influential gun/tactical/military related boards. 

I have even read posts by people who have praised a individual that has stolen my designs, failed to pay his bill to me, and as a matter of military record, committed incredible indiscretions while on overseas tour, as being a "great guy".

 Knowing the truth irks the hell out of me when I see posts claiming this fellow to be a "great guy" especially when I know the opposite to be true. 

Perhaps the poster does not know the whole story. 

Have I or others in the know posted these true stories for all to see?

No.   

What would be the point? Would it make me feel like a big man? I doubt it. Besides I can direct the energy towards more positive issues.

To me this "Tacsit" issue to be much ado about nothing. Some posts are damn near viscous and vindictive. In fact, on one wellknown U.S. board some joined up just to attack Tacsit. Odd because like I say, you never know who has something on you. . .

Yes I know it irks many that Tacsit may ( I say may because I was not there) have embellished his experiences and I truly do understand why it irks many, but to go on and on about it   -   well I think the point was made and I am sure the young man will choose his words more carefully in his future posts.

I implore the moderators to lock this thread and let us get on with what the discussion of tactical military clothing and equipment rather than destruction of a mans reputation.

Oh one more thing, remember you never know,   who knows...

Kindest Regards
Brian Kroon
President
Spike Camp Wilderness Safety Supply Ltd.
Drop ZoneTactical


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Aug 2004)

I will not be so quick to judge Tacsits claims as other have been. To illustrate my point, the young sixteen year old that works for me just completed 8 months of close protection training that ranged from battle wound care to live fire counter ambush drills from vehicles. Would I trust this young man in combat? Well that would be pushing it as he is still just sixteen. (Mind you he was able to hold his own when serving members within the CF were struggling) Is he capable of talking a good story from a position of knowledge? Absolutely. Could he contribute interesting posts. Yes. Would he embellish this unusual accomplishment of a 16 year old. NO! He knows better, that is the way he was taught.

Don't you think learning the ABC's of life in school just might be a bit more appropriate for a 16 year old?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Aug 2004)

I thought Canada was a signatory to international agreements prohibiting the use of "children" as soldiers in any event.  Does this not cross the line?

Whom should this be reported to, if so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2004)

I made a post regarding some of your comments dropzone but i think they will only invite further arguing and as you've said i think this issue has pretty much run it's course. all i'll say is this;



> I am sure the young man will choose his words more carefully in his future posts.


Mission accomplished. 
People often gotta learn things the hard way and in 5 years tacsit might look back at this rather public lesson and be thankful.

Why you would let someone get away with stealing your ideas is beyond me.
I'm not sure what boards you post at where an apparent hammer head gets praises sung about him but I think as you can see here, that won't happen.

Cheers


----------



## MG34 (23 Aug 2004)

DZ nice post,glad to see you came to the defence of your number 1 customer . He is an asshat who deserves everything that has been heaped on to him.
As for a 16 year old being trained,sure why not but it would be foolhardy to hire him as a BG.A monkey can be trained to pile sticks but it don't make him a bridge builder,maturity and experience count for alot more than reciting the book and doing drills.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2004)

Well, instead of beating the dead horse repeatedly, I will lock this.  I think we know where most people stand on the issue.  If anyone wishes to get away from peoples "street creds" and have a serious discussion on "the warrior mindset vs the professional ethos", by all means start one up and I'd be happy to contribute.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2004)

<bump>

I reopened this one because we have a developing discussion on the topic of "the warrior".


----------



## QORvanweert (28 Sep 2004)

I think a warrior is the person who goes that extra step and is willing to risk it all to protect someone who can't do it themselves... etc..


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2004)

> I think a warrior is the person who goes that extra step and is willing to risk it all to protect someone who can't do it themselves... etc.



Of course, that definition is applicable to a _kind person_ or a _responsible person_.  I believe the term "warrior" has social connotations as well, undesirable ones for us.


----------



## QORvanweert (28 Sep 2004)

ok. I was trying to make a simple statement. I realize the connotations implied with warrior, but in the end it boils down to professionalism and devotion; which I had summarized with my last post. I don't think a true warrior enjoys fighting because he can inflict pain, but more because it is an art that he wishes to master.


----------



## Acorn (28 Sep 2004)

Historically warriors were a class of society with, as Infanteer points out, qualities we wouldn't necessarily consider desirable in a soldier. I think there was an article in the CF Journal a couple of years ago that points this out much better than I can. However, a stab at it:

Historically warriors were:
1. Individualists
2. Self-centered
3. Fighters for the sake of fighting/booty/the "honour" of fighting for its own sake
4. The sort who regarded most other classes of society as inferiors and regarded the killing of inferiors as inconsequential

A recent historical example could be the Japanese in WWII.

The qualities of a soldier, rarely seen in "warriors:"
1. Discipline
2. Group action
3. Regard for soldiering as a profession - with attendant professional development
4. Considers himself an integral part of the society he has chosen to risk his life to protect

And in closing: warrior societies tended to get their collective butts kicked by soldier societies (I.e Romans v. most barbarians - at least before the moral collapse of Roman society; Russians v. Japanese in WWII; British v. <insert tribal group here>) partly because "warriors" disdain technological advances and their application to warfare, while the professional soldier constantly searches for ways to apply new technology to the battlefield.

Acorn


----------

