Being trained in "Espionage" does not guarantee you'll be able defend against sneak attacks?

[elder999]

Yep I took an educational trip to the spy museum in DC. with my family this year

And I'm not a spy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn, once...:

Hey, here's one: How do you define "unsuccessful spy?"

The most notorious spies in history

Famous spies (with video)

I mean, that second lot especially-they almost all got caught, right? The ones who didn't get caught may have become "known," or recognized for their contributions after the fact, but it's not like they were "famous spies...." or "notorious spies."

(Of course, they didn't get medals that they can't show to anyone, either, but......)

How do you define "successful spy?"

Retired.

 

[drop bear]

I've got no problem with questioning doctrine. You yourself do that frequently. Sometimes I might disagree with your conclusions or think that you are misunderstanding the doctrine you are questioning or think that you are expressing your point unclearly, but overall I think you are making a worthwhile contribution to the conversation.

Orcophile is asking questions and making arguments based on profound confusion about the fundamental concepts involved. He's making statements that seem to have no factual basis beyond his imagination. When clarifications are offered. he gives no indication that he understands the point being made. Assuming that he isn't just a dedicated performance artist, he's sufficiently confused that it's difficult to know how to communicate with him.

Yeah he is all over the place like a mad womans purse. But I think we need to understand what he is dealing with. It is hard to express an idea that is only half figured out. Give him a few goes at trying to get his head around a concept.

It is easier to not think about an idea and just express the expected responses.

Now of course it is a thread about how he misrepresented the word espionage. Which is the least important part of the discussion. We could have collectively steered him back on track. But we won't we will dog pile on the guy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hey, here's one: How do you define "unsuccessful spy?"

Easy. An unsuccessful spy is one who doesn't accomplish their mission. Spy gather information. A spy that cannot gather important information is unsuccessful

How do you define "successful spy?"

A successful spy is one who accomplishes their mission. They gather necessary information and get that information back to the appropriate person. This is what makes them successful. Some do this for years before they actually get caught. Some do it for less time but the mark of success is still the same. Gather information and then get that information back to the people who need it.

Not being caught just means that you can stay there longer and continue gathering information. "famous spies" refers to who they were known as in society and not because they were known as spies. For example, who would suspect a baseball player as being a spy. "notorious spies" are probably associated with something negative from the perspective of the country they were spying on. If from the U.S. so the "notorious spies" would be the ones that were spying on the U.S.

Spies who spilled Atomic Bomb Secrets

Like I said it was a spy museum and it had tons of spy stuff and information about spies. One of the things that they made clear was that many spies were well established within society and didn't stand out like a sore thumb. So your next door neighbor could be a spy and you wouldn't have any clue that he or she was a spy. This is why the U.S. tells civilians to be aware of people taking pictures of buildings. In the past we would have thought nothing of it and would have assumed that the person was a tourist, photographer, or some official taking a picture. Most spies are recruited from the environment that they the government needs them in. So if you need a spy in a science facility then you'll recruit someone from there to turn spy. The spies that we don't hear about are probably the ones that they die in the field.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Now of course it is a thread about how he misrepresented the word espionage.

That's actually part of getting someone back on track. He now has enough information to know what espionage is, what it consists of, and the type of people who are involved in it. The information that he's getting from everyone should give him a better understanding about what espionage is. The only way anyone walks out of this tread still confused about what espionage is, hasn't been reading.

 

[drop bear]

That's actually part of getting someone back on track. He now has enough information to know what espionage is, what it consists of, and the type of people who are involved in it. The information that he's getting from everyone should give him a better understanding about what espionage is. The only way anyone walks out of this tread still confused about what espionage is, hasn't been reading.

It doesn't matter what espionage is. It is not the point of the post.

If the reader was unable to translate the post then they might need to be taken more slowly through the concept. You do this by asking questions. Not picking one small point and spending the next ten pages correcting someone on it.

It is petty and demeaning to the poster. And shows a lack of lateral thinking.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sounds pretty neat. Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but even after a 3 hour visit to the spy museum in DC, I'd caution you to be a little less confident in what you think you know. That's what got the OP into this in the first place. Right?

I've spent hours and hours at the Experience Music Project in Seattle. One of my favorite museums to go to with my kids. That doesn't make me an expert on music.

The stuff that I've said is the same stuff that's you'll find on websites like the Smithsonian, Discovery Channel, in books about spies, and many other valid resources about spies. I can only tell you what I read when it comes to Spies, that's as far as my knowledge goes. I never claim to be a "spy expert" and made no effort to hide where I learned about spies and how they were operating. A person can do similar research on the same subject matter and get the same information that I stated here.

I'm confident in what I saw and read in a historical museum. One tends not to question the validity of a museum that has actual spy equipment on display that was used during different decades. Then you go to websites like the Smithsonian, Discovery Channel, and History channel and see the same information. It's less about what I know and more about what I read.

You spent hours and hours at the Experience Music Project in Seattle, and I bet you can tell me more music based information than I know only because you went to a place like that. What got the OP into this in the first place was not actually looking to see what was going on in real life.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It doesn't matter what espionage is. It is not the point of the post.

If the reader was unable to translate the post then they might need to be taken more slowly through the concept. You do this by asking questions. Not picking one small point and spending the next ten pages correcting someone on it.

It is petty and demeaning to the poster. And shows a lack of lateral thinking.

Then you tell me what he meant to say

 

[drop bear]

Then you tell me what he meant to say

That soldiers with mad skills can still get ambushed.even though they have trained in counter ambush techniques.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That soldiers with mad skills can still get ambushed.even though they have trained in counter ambush techniques.

And who had the assumption that soldiers can't get ambushed?

 

[drop bear]

And who had the assumption that soldiers can't get ambushed?

I did because of their mad skills.

 

[elder999]

Easy. An unsuccessful spy is one who doesn't accomplish their mission. Spy gather information. A spy that cannot gather important information is unsuccessful

An unsuccessful spy, in case you missed it, is one that gets caught Klaus Fuchs spent 10 years in jail and got to live the rest of his life in the Dismal Deutsche Demokratik Republik-three decades in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, after 10 years in prison-yeah, that's "success."

The Rosenbergs just got executed, but what the hell-they "accomplished their mission."


Most of the rest of the people in your links are a collection of losers who did irrepairable harm to their targets, but even more to themselves.....or they enjoyed their success in relative anonymity, like Julia Childs-who became famous for cooking-not spying.

A successful spy is one who accomplishes their mission.

A successful spy, in case you missed what I was saying, is one who accomplishes their mission, and gets away with it,

Theodore Hall was a successful spy.

The spies that we don't hear about are probably the ones that they die in the field.

....just...

 

[lklawson]

What do real spies look like? You seem conspicuously confident on this subject.

For my job, I have to endure annual training on how to spot "real life spies."

They look absolutely jack-crap like an SF or like anything else in this thread for that matter.

Espionage and spying is about steeling secrets. You can get far more of that accomplished with a nice set of boobs and the willingness to let your target fondle them than 1,000 SF guys sneaking around ambushing people.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Dirty Dog]

For my job, I have to endure annual training on how to spot "real life spies."

They look absolutely jack-crap like an SF or like anything else in this thread for that matter.

Espionage and spying is about steeling secrets. You can get far more of that accomplished with a nice set of boobs and the willingness to let your target fondle them than 1,000 SF guys sneaking around ambushing people.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

In todays world, I suspect you can get far more of that accomplished with a computer. Or a large supply of cash.

 

[lklawson]

I took conceptual physics at the community college. Does that count?

No... I didn't think so.

Yes. Absolutely. You now have some of the requisite skills to start social engineering certain researchers and scientists for secrets of their research: You can speak to them intelligently about the subject.

Seriously.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yep I took an educational trip to the spy museum in DC. with my family this year (son, brother, nephew, wife, grandparents). It was like a big library of spy history, real spy gadgets and tactics. For examples, we always think of someone placing a bug in the room, but with espionage they would place many of the bugs in the building during the construction of the building. So it wasn't uncommon to find bugs inside of walls and pipes. The whole point of being a spy was not to look like a spy. Spies look like everyday people which is the point of being one, to blend in. Some spies look like grandparents other spies were movie stars. The disguises were slight alterations that could be done quickly, my guess is that less meant less risk of wardrobe malfunction. The drop off stuff was cool which helped to give an idea of what a real spy drop off looks like. For example soda can in the woods that looks like litter would be a drop off place. Everyone else would just see it as trash, but to a spy it would be a drop off. Holes at the base of a tree could also be a drop off place as well.

They don't do that anymore. It's passe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

In todays world, I suspect you can get far more of that accomplished with a computer. Or a large supply of cash.

The pile of cash works well, but hooters work better. But the most reliable and profitable (in terms of long-term lifting secrets without being caught) seems to be finding a malcontent in the ranks who agrees with your ideology (or, even better, the ideology you've convinced him you have which he agrees with).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

An unsuccessful spy, in case you missed it, is one that gets caught Klaus Fuchs spent 10 years in jail and got to live the rest of his life in the Dismal Deutsche Demokratik Republik-three decades in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, after 10 years in prison-yeah, that's "success."

The Rosenbergs just got executed, but what the hell-they "accomplished their mission."


Most of the rest of the people in your links are a collection of losers who did irrepairable harm to their targets, but even more to themselves.....or they enjoyed their success in relative anonymity, like Julia Childs-who became famous for cooking-not spying.




A successful spy, in case you missed what I was saying, is one who accomplishes their mission, and gets away with it,

Theodore Hall was a successful spy.

....just...

What I can tell you is that the U.S. Department of Defense has a different definition for successful spy. A successful spy to them is the spy who exports our secrets to any one else. Catching them is not a failure of the spy. Having the spy reveal even one of our secrets is a failure for us. A failure for us is a "success" for the spy's Handler.

Spies are very real. Very dangerous to national security. And taken VERY seriously.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[elder999]

For my job, I have to endure annual training on how to spot "real life spies."

They look absolutely jack-crap like an SF or like anything else in this thread for that matter.

Espionage and spying is about steeling secrets. You can get far more of that accomplished with a nice set of boobs and the willingness to let your target fondle them than 1,000 SF guys sneaking around ambushing people.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

FOr my old job, the one I........ retired from, I had the very same training, and it;'s the same for the DOE...

(,,,interesting how easily some guys fall for the boobs )

What I can tell you is that the U.S. Department of Defense has a different definition for successful spy. A successful spy to them is the spy who exports our secrets to any one else. Catching them is not a failure of the spy. Having the spy reveal even one of our secrets is a failure for us. A failure for us is a "success" for the spy's Handler.

Spies are very real. Very dangerous to national security. And taken VERY seriously.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

The DOE sees things the same way-kinda-what you call a "successful spy," we called a failure in security....from the spy's point of view, though, getting caught is not "success," however much of their mission was accomplished. Not getting caught means being able to go home-wherever that is, even if it means staying in place against the day of future usefulness.....

 

[kuniggety]

The pile of cash works well, but hooters work better. But the most reliable and profitable (in terms of long-term lifting secrets without being caught) seems to be finding a malcontent in the ranks who agrees with your ideology (or, even better, the ideology you've convinced him you have which he agrees with).

I work in the intelligence community. The boobs thing is affectionately referred to as a honey pot. If she's a 10 and you're a 5, you should really stop and think what she's after. Classic espionage isn't sneaking into buildings and putting in bugs. A person shouldn't be discussing classified information in a hotel anyways. What works and works well are insider threats. This can be the classic honey pot of the middle aged analyst meeting the young pretty Chinese PhD student who needs research information for her dissertation that he just happens to have because of his job, Chelsea Manning situations, or assholes who literally sell out their country like the Walker ring selling encryption keys to the Russians.

 

[oftheherd1]

Inspired because some of the comments I seen in my thread about people in nonviolent jobs being more skilled at weapons reminded me of this thread.

Self Defense: Does being trained in "Espionage" (for lack of better term) does not guarantee you'll be able to survive the hoods and detect a sneak attack and remain aware of your surroundings in such violent places?

What do you think? I already mentioned in my other threads about angry French war veterans from the Algerian Revolution criticizing Battle of Algiers for portraying French soldiers getting slaughtered by Algerian working class people (specifically farmers) in sneak attacks with such finesse and skill.

Because there is a tendency to think just because you know how to sneak up to a person and KO him out with a read chokehold, a lot of people learning sneak attack techniques think they are immune to being ambushed or that they would be able to react with their skills if they even found themselves in one.

Which as the link above shows, real war veterans, including special forces, have been killed when traveling in the hoods because they got attacked from a blindspot by shady people they were completely unaware were stalking said SF vets or eyeing war veterans movements.

From Orcophile at http://en.allexperts.com/q/Self-Defense-2265/2015/5/trained-espionage-lack-better.htm

Don't even get me started on newbie policemen who despite receiving training about awareness and how criminals often use sneak attacks, are completely caught by surprise when they patrol the ghettos.

But here's one thing I notice: Although the shocking incident of war vets being killed by untrained criminals including SF is shockingly high, I notice the death incidents for war veterans who GREW UP in dangerous towns are practically 0. In fact they are the ones MOST RELUCTANT to go back to their home town if its a ghetto. WHile most of the victims from criminal sneak attacks were SOLDIERS who GREW UP in MIDDLE CLASS America. Despite their training in sneak attacks and awareness of battlefield surroundings, they seem unable to apply the same thing back at home (even if its a dangerous location like a rough bar).

To bring up the police example, I noted the older policemen who's been on the job for years and frequently patrolled the hoods have BARELY ANY CASUALTIES from being snuck up on from behind and being hit. Most successful sneak attacks towards experienced policemen I noted tend to be from gunshots or involve multiple attackers. But like the white woman in New York and the black kid witht he pedophile, I am amazed how just by simply walking into a small alley, these vet police can notice something is off and leave before **** blows up or call for reinforcement. Some of thse cops even grew up LEARNING OUTDATED procedures abandoned from the police academy (often ignoring the threat of sneak attacks). So I'm amazed its the new recruits completely caught by surprise despite all the training they receive about the dangers of sneak attacks.

Also from orcophile at Self Defense: Does being trained in "Espionage" (for lack of better term) does not guarantee you'll be able to survive the hoods and detect a sneak attack and remain aware of your surroundings in such violent places?

Because I cannot tell you how many times violence professionals (many who have actual limited experience in violence) always bash when cinema shows a 3rd world farmer able to overpower a special forces operative and stab him much faster than than said SF soldier could react in time to attempt knife disarms. Or how martial artists always yell "thats unrealistic! In real life a farmer who only skins rabbit of his fur would not be able to hit slash and disable a thug!" and such comments whenever a working class man is portrayed in mass media as being just as effective with using tools as weapon as a bounty hunter or policeman.

My experiences as a butcher and the summer I spent in Algeria with relatives of mine who are farmers and ranchers makes me wonder how legit such criticisms are? I mean I was shocked as hell of how difficult it was to kill the giant bird the first time I went on a hunting trip after moving in with my uncle's family for that summer in Algeria!

I mean as a rancher you probably had to kill some animals and you said you worked in various violence profession style job. So I ask your input.

You seem to have a tendency to throw out a lot of "facts" but without an attribution. Frankly, given what you say and how you say it, you really need attribution to have any chance of being believed. You say things as if you have years of experience and had established bonafides. Yet clearly you do not. No do you seem to consider what you have been told by members here, any more that you apparently accept Mr. MacYoung's answer.

At your age, you potentially have a lot of years ahead of you to learn many of life;s good and bad points. But you canot learn if you are going to consider yourself to already have superior knowledge more than experienced MA> Worse, why ask a question and then provide an answer that most MA here do not agree with, and appear to make up facts to support your answer?

I wish you luck. I fear you are going to need it to succeed. With your current attitude, intellect probably isn't going to help you much.

Just to be fair and give an answer to your question: Being trained in armed group combat doesn't guarantee survival in the 'hood.' Conversely, having good survival skills in the hood doesn't mean you will be good in armed group combat. Nor does having good survival skills in either area guarantee survival. Many survival skills on the battlefiend don't translate to the hood, and vice versa. Get used to that. Someday it might help you live longer and/or with less pain.

EDIT: There seems to have been some funky thing happening to my post, with many things added to foul things up, that I cannot explain. Sorry.[/QUOTE]