Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:That was a quote from Col. Jeff Cooper about masked men in general. Not sure why you're elbows deep in your donkey cave over this.

J. Jonah Jameson also dislikes masked men.

Did someone really claim that balaclavas protect against "fire and hot gas" and then go on to insult other people's intelligence? That person having exactly zero experience while the people he was informing about the magical properties of balaclavas had quite a lot?

This thread's awesome.

Again, we have been totally sidetracked into nonsense and absurdity. Who really cares that much about Balaclavas when we are taling about surveillance programs?

Here is the question, "Even though the NSA secret spying programs stopped 50 terrorist attacks, including one on the NYSE; is it still a good use of NSA resource or in in the best interests of US citizens?"

 Easy E wrote:
Again, we have been totally sidetracked into nonsense and absurdity. Who really cares that much about Balaclavas when we are taling about surveillance programs?

Letting absurd claims pass has never been a strong point of this board.

Here is the question, "Even though the NSA secret spying programs stopped 50 terrorist attacks, including one on the NYSE; is it still a good use of NSA resourceor or in in the best interests of US citizens?"

Probably.

Actually there are balaclavas designed to protect from fire.

It would depend entirely on what type of balaclavas the officers were using. Your common everyday one would not exactly be helpful, for example, and from the picture shown that doesn't look like a fire resistant one. I don't actually know though, because I didn't make it or happened to be there.

Suggesting they wore them out of shame is hilarious though.

One in the picture is wearing a regular cotton one.

Yeah, thought so.

At most I would hazard it could protect against minor scrapes, and it's mostly for protecting the identity of the officer and family against retribution.

Careful Dwhitey. Might get Sebster to go off on you. If so take the money and run with it. Couple of us did just to get him all full of piss and vinegar and self righteous.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, thought so.

At most I would hazard it could protect against minor scrapes, and it's mostly for protecting the identity of the officer and family against retribution.

Often there are agents who work undercover who double as door kickers on some of these ops. They will tend to wear them to protect identity.

But....

Having been issued poly propylene ones, and ones made from nomex, I can assure you poly pro melting into your flesh would be a bad thing and very much NOT any protection against fires.

Frankly the thought of wearing anything that happily melts during a fire on my bare skin is horrifying.

How good were the nomex ones, if at all?

Also this is a fun derail!

Nomex flight uniforms are good for "Flash Fire" Your goal though if in a aircraft which a flash fire has occur is to out run the crew chief and the pilots. Even though your MULTICAM is FR the thing will still go up in flames in a sustain fire situation. Also your a bit more motivated to get out and away from a vehicle, aircraft, or rotary wing aircraft. You are in fact carrying a lot of ammo, pyro, frags, maybe some flashbang....someone carrying 20mm grenade rounds for the 204...its quite unhealthy to stay in prolong heat situation. Lets not also forget your wearing ballistic eyewear, metal dog chain around your neck or in your right front pocket or rear right pocket.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That was a quote from Col. Jeff Cooper about masked men in general. Not sure why you're elbows deep in your donkey cave over this.

Because you said something ludicrous, and I want you to realise that.

Personal statement though? If they aren't ashamed they damn well should be.

Are they wearing masks because they are ashamed, or because they should be ashamed? Are you suggesting it isn't shame that makes them put on masks, but the shame they ought to be feeling that makes them put the masks on?

Which would explain the multiple cover ups by multiple agencies including the FBI, agents changing their testimony from what they told reporters compared to what they said on the stand, you know stuff like that.

Didn't they put the masks on before that happened? So now the shame is travelling through time, as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
What? Can't tell the officer that KM posted a bit wee heavy? That's not body armor he is wearing....its a Mollee Vest. If he was wearing body armor then it should have been on top of his jacket. That looks like a nylon material jacket under the Mollee Vest. That's a no go. I do believe the fed has a similar standard of Height and Weight. If the officer knows news crew are going to be around filming live and he knows he's "questionable" on being close to popping tape. He throw on the Bakacava to mask his identity from his Chain of Command to avoid to be called in to make height and weight standards as long as possible to buy himself time to lose the excess weight. I do the same damn thing to till operation execution. Hey if your thinking I'm all out bashing the Feds rapid response teams its all good. Nothing but rivalry. So call it BS or whatever you like but it still stands. You Lack Combat Experience, You Lack a good sense of humor. You lack the understanding of friendly rivalry. You also do not know as most here don't that these teams train with 160th right? In fact quite a few of these team members on the fed side are former SPECOPS and/or high speed grunts. NSDQ and brush up a bit more on the US Military

You haven't read this conversation. I never attempted to defend the ATF, or the subsequent FBI response. If you'd read the conversation, you'd have noted I said the raid pointless, compromised and terribly executed.

I am simply commenting on a politically driven comment that masks were worn only because of the personal shame of the agents... which was a fething stupid comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Did someone really claim that balaclavas protect against "fire and hot gas" and then go on to insult other people's intelligence? That person having exactly zero experience while the people he was informing about the magical properties of balaclavas had quite a lot?

Yes, because that is a design feature of many balaclavas. One doesn't need combat experience to know, merely the ability to read the manufacturer's tag.

Anyhow, I thought you had me on ignore, since you claimed that US murder rates were due to crimes, and I gave you the FBI figures that disproved that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Suggesting they wore them out of shame is hilarious though.

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

I mean, I laughed a lot when I read it, and then I tried to explain to the person who suggested it why it was such a silly thing to say. Then some other people, for reasons I haven't really got my head around, came to the defence of that stupid, stupid idea.

To you Sebster just to you. We rag on them quite a bit as they do on us. Welcome to "Camaraderie" but like I said before. I'm just going to feed into whatever perception you have on us in the US military. In a fun way. Because not only the chubster would possible get shot but he be suffering from 2nd degree burns from the Nylon Jacket...not including the debries from the jacket that melted inside him to. Besides it seems Delta Force initiated the combat portion...a elite US ARMY combat force was seem to be lead on that attack Pres Clinton avoided a situation. Also seem Hillary order the Coup De Grace to the remainder of the Brach Davidian

 Jihadin wrote:
To you Sebster just to you. We rag on them quite a bit as they do on us.

Of course, and I read the fat stuff and laughed, but didn't contribute because I didn't have anything to add to that part of the conversation.

None of which has anything to do with honest to god, made not in jest but with complete seriousness claim that tactical police wear balaclavas because of the shame of being tactical police. It wasn't made to rag on someone in a joking way.

I mean, here is the original claim;
"Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. … I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper "

That isn't ragging... that's being crazy.

I'm just going to feed into whatever perception you have on us in the US military.

What perception is that? What are you talking about?

My perception is that being in some way affiliated with the US military makes you an expert on every relevant field in any argument.

 Da Boss wrote:
My perception is that being in some way affiliated with the US military makes you an expert on every relevant field in any argument.

No, but I would say it does tend to make us at least slightly more knowledgeable on issues related to the military than an office manager from down under.

 Seaward wrote:
No, but I would say it does tend to make us at least slightly more knowledgeable on issues related to the military than an office manager from down under.

Sure. Until someone claims that tactical police only wear balaclavas out of a deep shame over the job they're doing. At which point a person could be a bubble boy who's never seen the sun to know that's a crazy claim.

From there we can speculate about why other people with combat experience might wander in to criticise that person for speaking on the subject, while never actually trying to defend that original crazy claim. In some cases it might just be protecting what they see as one of their own, or a subject that others should not talk about, in others it might be because... well I don't know, maybe because that person had a big sad in a gun control debate after I gave them figures disproving their poorly researched claims. But I'm just guessing here, it could be anything, really.



Also, office manager?

 sebster wrote:
Sure. Until someone claims that tactical police only wear balaclavas out of a deep shame over the job they're doing. At which point a person could be a bubble boy who's never seen the sun to know that's a crazy claim.

It's not quite claiming that untreated cotton has magical protective powers and that's why they're worn, but it's likely not the case for most situations, no.

It would give much deeper "dull" black. First time I went wearing FR uniforms its not fun when you develop a rash in your crotch till your skin gets use to it. Lidocaine cream is your friend....and long hot shower popping zits on inner thighs. Besides in actually. Since I'm guessing the guy head is cold...if that pic was from Feb when Branch Davidian went down. Its a no brainer. If he left it on when all the excitement was happen and left it on then that's a chucklehead move. First thing I be taking off so I can freaking breath and not have tunnel vision. Just seem though he was walking around

 Seaward wrote:
It's not quite claiming that untreated cotton has magical protective powers and that's why they're worn, but it's likely not the case for most situations, no.

Which is running on the assumption that balaclavas are only ever made out of cotton, which is, well, kind of stupid.

And likely not the case for most situations? So you're saying there are some tactical police out there who don balaclavas for no reason than a deep personal shame over their professions? That's... just... I mean, I know you picked your side years ago and believe thinking is the enemy of loyalty, but god damn it man, listen to yourself.

 sebster wrote:
Which is running on the assumption that balaclavas are only ever made out of cotton, which is, well, kind of stupid.

You were talking about Waco and the ones worn by the ATF when you made the assertion that, somehow, some way, they protect against "fire and gas." You're welcome to claim you were talking about somebody else's balaclavas, I guess, but I doubt anyone would buy it. I realize you talked out of your ass and are now trying to walk it back, and I'm even inclined to let you, since you're generally so ill-informed on this sort of thing, but not if you're going to keep digging your own hole.

And likely not the case for most situations? So you're saying there are some tactical police out there who don balaclavas for no reason than a deep personal shame over their professions? That's... just... I mean, I know you picked your side years ago and believe thinking is the enemy of loyalty, but god damn it man, listen to yourself.

Not entirely sure what "tactical police" are, but ATF wannabe door kickers generally wear them for intimidation. I'll eagerly await you telling us how they're also bulletproof and capable of summoning dragons, though.

Well...sliding on a Balaclava is a bit faster then say...making T-Shirt Ninja....most cases...your shirt armpit winds up around your face and nose...

 Jihadin wrote:
Well...sliding on a Balaclava is a bit faster then say...making T-Shirt Ninja....most cases...your shirt armpit winds up around your face and nose...

Old Spice Swagger deodorant, my friend. Makes it all worth it.

 Seaward wrote:
You were talking about Waco and the ones worn by the ATF when you made the assertion that, somehow, some way, they protect against "fire and gas." You're welcome to claim you were talking about somebody else's balaclavas, I guess, but I doubt anyone would buy it.

"Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD."
"It protects from flames and hot gas."

I realize you talked out of your ass and are now trying to walk it back, and I'm even inclined to let you, since you're generally so ill-informed on this sort of thing, but not if you're going to keep digging your own hole.

All I ever wanted to do was point out to a poster that his claim that the ATF showed deep shame, and this was evidenced by their need to conceal their faces was crazy. Whether the actual reason was for a slight amount of protection from hot gas and really minor shrapnel, or just because they want to look cool, or because they fear reprisal, I don't really care. I suspect it's probably a combination of the first two in some amount in the US, with the last option being the most important in more disfunctional parts of the world.

The greater point being, of course, that the original assertion that such officers must be ashamed of what they do and this can be evidenced by their choice of headgear is completely nutty.

Not entirely sure what "tactical police" are, but ATF wannabe door kickers generally wear them for intimidation. I'll eagerly await you telling us how they're also bulletproof and capable of summoning dragons, though.

So now you're just walking away from that vague bit of nonsense about shame being 'likely not the case for most situations'? Can't come to admit that my original point was right and that the claim about balaclavas being due to shame was 100% crazy nonsense, but can't pretend that the point was even slightly right... so instead you're just going to try and ignore it?

Well, I can't say that's anything but same old Seaward nonsense.


Oh, and tactical police is a general term used in some places around the world to describe police units that engage in tactical operations like hostage rescue and counter terrorism. I'm guessing people use it because the official names of these units, like police tactical group and police tactical unit is too wordy, and SWAT is too American.

 sebster wrote:
"Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD."
"It protects from flames and hot gas."

They really don't, though, unless they're specially designed. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you.

All I ever wanted to do was point out to a poster that his claim that the ATF showed deep shame, and this was evidenced by their need to conceal their faces was crazy.

Countering with something equally nonsensical probably wasn't the way to go.

So now you're just walking away from that vague bit of nonsense about shame being 'likely not the case for most situations'?

Nope. I still very much think shame is likely not the case in most situations.

Can't come to admit that my original point was right and that the claim about balaclavas being due to shame was 100% crazy nonsense, but can't pretend that the point was even slightly right... so instead you're just going to try and ignore it?

You'd have been right if you'd left it at that, rather than doing what you always do and deciding you're an expert on a topic you know remarkably little about.

 Seaward wrote:
They really don't, though, unless they're specially designed. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you.

Yeah, and that's what I replied to. I mean, read what I just quoted to you.

Countering with something equally nonsensical probably wasn't the way to go.

Equally nonsensical? Equal?

A suggestion that there might be a protective component, compared to the suggestion that it's worn out of a personal shame due to being in a tactical police unit? Both things 'equally nonsensical'?

I mean, I know you're all butthurt because in the past I've pointed out factual errors in your arguments, and because you're the kind of guy you are, instead of just learning something and moving on, we've ended up in these weird pissing contests, but this is a fething strange to pick to try and score some points back.

I think you're misinterpreting the quote a little Sebs. What the Colonel is suggesting is not shame from being in a tactical police unit, (though the man pictured isn't, he's just a regular ATF agent) it's the concept that if you are concealing your identity, you are usually up to no good, and that as a soldier, or law enforcement officer you should have no reason to conceal your identity or hide your face in the discharge of your official duties, and if you do conceal yourself it can be inferred that, like the other masked men running around that you're up to no good, or doing work that you would in some way be shamed by enough that you don't want your face or name attached to it.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think you're misinterpreting the quote a little Sebs. What the Colonel is suggesting is not shame from being in a tactical police unit, (though the man pictured isn't, he's just a regular ATF agent) it's the concept that if you are concealing your identity, you are usually up to no good, and that as a soldier, or law enforcement officer you should have no reason to conceal your identity or hide your face in the discharge of your official duties, and if you do conceal yourself it can be inferred that, like the other masked men running around that you're up to no good, or doing work that you would in some way be shamed by enough that you don't want your face or name attached to it.

You're splitting hairs, there. I mean, balaclavas are worn regularly by these units in their operations, not just at Waco. So if it isn't the shame of being in a tactical unit, then it must be the shame of undertaking the operations commonly performed by police tactical units...


None of which makes any sense when you look at the actions of the ATF in the lead up to Waco. They leaked it to the media beforehand, because they wanted media attention. Which says a lot of bad things about the competence of the ATF, but doesn't suggest any measure of shame.

Except balacavas are not common issued equipment any where that isn't cold, nor is taping off your badge's ID number which is actually against regs in many police units. We just explained to you in detail that balacavas are not in common use as protective equipment, and I'd say that's especially true in the United States, there's an inherent distrust or distaste for masked men here that aren't billionaires with their own private arsenal (but it's okay because Bruce Wayne doesn't exist).

I also think you's misconstruing the ATF's contact with the Herald Tribune, that wasn't an intentional "leak" so much as a "We're doing stuff, stop publishing your editorial attack ads", that's the process of tying down loose variables, if they had wanted media attention they would have brought a no gak news crew with them. Which actually might have been a net positive when you think about it. Camera footage would probably lay most of the controversy to rest.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Except balacavas are not common issued equipment any where that isn't cold, nor is taping off your badge's ID number which is actually against regs in many police units. We just explained to you in detail that balacavas are not in common use as protective equipment, and I'd say that's especially true in the United States, there's an inherent distrust or distaste for masked men here that aren't billionaires with their own private arsenal (but it's okay because Bruce Wayne doesn't exist).

So the conclusions is the inherent shame of raiding the complex? I mean, come on, this has gone on so long...

I also think you's misconstruing the ATF's contact with the Herald Tribune, that wasn't an intentional "leak" so much as a "We're doing stuff, stop publishing your editorial attack ads", that's the process of tying down loose variables, if they had wanted media attention they would have brought a no gak news crew with them. Which actually might have been a net positive when you think about it. Camera footage would probably lay most of the controversy to rest.

No, there was a direct tip made that the raid would be that morning, prompting a camera man to go looking for the compound, which led to the Davidians being tipped off about the raid. Exactly who made the leak, and why the tip was made has been the source of endless speculation, of course.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with 'camera footage would have probably lay most of the contraversy to rest'. There was footage. It was all over the news. It happened because a camera man was there, filming the events (a different one than the guy who accidentally tipped off the Davidians).