BF2S Forums U.S. military threatens Afghan village.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm not overreacting. I am not dismissing the information contained in the article, I simply believe the same thing you just admitted, "It's not the finest of journalism". Maybe you were overreacting with my response of the author having an agenda beyond reporting the news.

There's a very long way between second rate journalism and having an agenda when writing articles. I don't see why you're trying to imply that there isn't.

It begs the question why. It's only logical

I guess we'll have to settle on seeing it in different lights.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

A credible news outlet does question the reader. The job is very simple. When you present questions you plant ideas in the readers head. Analysis should be left completely up to the reader. It is not the custom of most wire services to ask the reader what they think. I'm sure it happens, but is not the norm. Reporting the news is best left at reporting. We've got plenty of talking heads to fill in the rest... and to propose questions.

I specifically said that analysis of news is the custom for most all news media but wire services.

The question you refer to didn't at all seem to be a question posed by the journalist, rather it seemed to be part of the analysis which suggested that the situation itself raises the question. Big difference.

News media? If you are being all inclusive in your definition sure. However there is a difference between an op'ed piece and a news report. You are failing to understand this. It is not restricted to syndicated media.

I'm not at all failing to understand this, and to suggest so is to ignore the debate we've had up until this point.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Either you are ignoring the intended audience, the people who have taken the soldier, or you underestimate the ability of afghans to comprehend a simple message.

The last time these Afghans were in a situation of foreign occupation, they experienced Soviet collective punishment. Their villages were carpet bombed and razed to the ground for the mere suspicion that insurgents were present. Now coalition troops are distributing these ambiguous warnings to entire communities, and you expect them to ignore their past experiences without scepticism? No, I'm not underestimating the Afghans one bit.

They have been interacting with Americans for almost eight years now, much of it has been positive (building schools together, providing medical care and clean drinking water). There are key differences between what we are doing and what the soviets did (or didn't do).

They've been dealing with coalition forces for eight years, yes, but I don't recall them dealing with anything like this from coalition forces before. Many of these people are still sceptical of their intentions, and view the coalition forces as a negative presence. That's in no way a surprise to anyone.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This idea of collective punishment at the hands of US soldiers is a stretch. Yes there has been collateral damage, given the typical way we have conducted ourselves it seems obvious to me that this is a warning, trying to prevent innocents from being hurt. The intent here is not collective punishment. This was also stated in the article.

I'm having trouble finding any post in this thread where I even as much as hint at the possibility that US troops will dispense collective punishment. The very notion is absurd.

You've implied that the afghans are going to assume collective punishment. I do not think this is the case. I give them more credit and feel they understand who the "targets" are.

That's a ridiculous claim. The only thing I've implied is that many Afghans are likely going to consider what happened last time their villages were warned about insurgent activity when they read these leaflets.

This stems from your assertion that it is obvious that these messages were directed specifically at the insurgents, despite the use of the ambiguous "you". Past circumstances have proven to these people that the intended recipients of a message like this aren't always just the insurgents responsible. That's why there's nothing simple about this sort of message in that part of the world.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-17 12:59:31)

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not at all failing to understand this, and to suggest so is to ignore the debate we've had up until this point.

Your response is what has led me to believe you aren't getting it. How is reading and replying to your view ignoring the debate? Nonsense.

You're ignoring the debate by suggesting that I don't "get" the difference between a news article and an opinion piece, despite replying to posts in which I've consistently argued that the paragraph in question wasn't an opinion, but rather customary analysis. Every post I've made has explicitly argued contrary to what you're now claiming.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

They've been dealing with coalition forces for eight years, yes, but I don't recall them dealing with anything like this from coalition forces before. Many of these people are still sceptical of their intentions, and view the coalition forces as a negative presence. That's in no way a surprise to anyone.

Of course there are skeptics and the military caters to them plenty. However, there is a balance to be achieved between sending a direct message to those who have kidnapped and being sensitive to possible misunderstandings.

I'm sure the offending parties are keenly aware that they'll be hunted down. There's no need to send a direct message by widely distributing a warning that's as open to interpretation as the one in question. I can fully understand the use of the flyer calling, in a civil tone, for the release of the captured soldier, and that would have been ample notification to the general population.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

That's a ridiculous claim. The only thing I've implied is that many Afghans are likely going to consider what happened last time their villages were warned about insurgent activity when they read these leaflets.

This stems from your assertion that it is obvious that these messages were directed specifically at the insurgents, despite the use of the ambiguous "you". Past circumstances have proven to these people that the intended recipients of a message like this aren't always just the insurgents responsible. That's why there's nothing simple about this sort of message in that part of the world.

It's a matter of interpretation. To me it's quite obvious that they are directing the message to the people who took them.. evident in the remark asking to release him. I'm aware of their history with other forces, but I'm also acknowledging the events of the last eight years.

There's a difference between simply acknowledging the events of the past eight years, and disregarding influence from past experience. The mere fact that coalition troops are still viewed with suspicion and mistrust by many Afghans is evidence to the suggestion that the span of foreign occupation hasn't wholly warmed the local population up to these troops. This suspicion and mistrust is only compounded by the introduction of new methods employed by the coalition; methods that on the surface must be eerily reminiscent of Soviet ones.

Kmarion wrote:

Also consider the second pamphlet that followed and looked like this:
http://i31.tinypic.com/207qs2c.jpg
.. it included the message: "One of our American guests is missing." On the back: "Return the guest to his home. Call us at…"

Refer to the above.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-17 13:42:35)

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not at all failing to understand this, and to suggest so is to ignore the debate we've had up until this point.

Your response is what has led me to believe you aren't getting it. How is reading and replying to your view ignoring the debate? Nonsense.

You're ignoring the debate by suggesting that I don't "get" the difference between a news article and an opinion piece, despite replying to posts in which I've consistently argued that the paragraph in question wasn't an opinion, but rather customary analysis. Every post I've made has explicitly argued contrary to what you're now claiming.

It is not customary to do so outside of opinion pieces. There is a line that you either don't understand or are intentionally trying to blur. "Insightful analysis" is not reporting.. plain and simple.

I'm neither ignorant or deliberately trying to blur anything. Offering analysis is customary for this kind of news media. You'll find many articles with analysis of the same kind. It's a frequently used journalistic technique, and while you may not like it, it's certainly common enough that characterising it as a grave error in a specific article is somewhat dishonest.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

They've been dealing with coalition forces for eight years, yes, but I don't recall them dealing with anything like this from coalition forces before. Many of these people are still sceptical of their intentions, and view the coalition forces as a negative presence. That's in no way a surprise to anyone.

Of course there are skeptics and the military caters to them plenty. However, there is a balance to be achieved between sending a direct message to those who have kidnapped and being sensitive to possible misunderstandings.

I'm sure the offending parties are keenly aware that they'll be hunted down. There's no need to send a direct message by widely distributing a warning that's as open to interpretation as the one in question. I can fully understand the use of the flyer calling, in a civil tone, for the release of the captured soldier, and that would have been ample notification to the general population.

I'm not so sure they are keenly aware. A direct message to let them know that we are determined to see this through is sometimes needed. We point out our will all the time to let those responsible know how resolute we are.

You keep citing eight years of familiarity with the coalition forces and their methods as an argument, so surely you must also believe that the single most significant message that has been sent by coalition forces in those eight years is that they don't take lightly to being attacked. It seems absurd to suggest that these people don't realise what they're up against.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's a matter of interpretation. To me it's quite obvious that they are directing the message to the people who took them.. evident in the remark asking to release him. I'm aware of their history with other forces, but I'm also acknowledging the events of the last eight years.

There's a difference between simply acknowledging the events of the past eight years, and disregarding influence from past experience. The mere fact that coalition troops are still viewed with suspicion and mistrust by many Afghans is evidence to the suggestion that the span of foreign occupation hasn't wholly warmed the local population up to these troops. This suspicion and mistrust is only compounded by the introduction of new methods employed by the coalition; methods that on the surface must be eerily reminiscent of Soviet ones.

Kmarion wrote:

Also consider the second pamphlet that followed and looked like this:
http://i31.tinypic.com/207qs2c.jpg
.. it included the message: "One of our American guests is missing." On the back: "Return the guest to his home. Call us at…"

Refer to the above.

Clearly we are not disregarding the events of the past. If we were we would not be making such a consorted effort to explain our intents and warning people before we start searching.

Even a well-intentioned effort can be detrimental to a desired outcome. I haven't been arguing whether or not they meant well, I've been arguing that this probably wasn't the best way they could go about it, and that the message of the leaflet definitely wasn't as clear cut as it is to people who've never been bombed by association.

Beduin wrote:

ATG wrote:

Leaflets should be saying;
"...kindly gtfo or die ".

No. We need to gtfo.
I am afraid that this attitude will lead to a situation worse than Vietnam.

To be honest, I'm kind of leaning in the direction of getting the fuck out as well.

At this point, maybe the best approach is to just let Afghanistan and Pakistan handle this however they see fit, and if any future attacks occur against us, we'll have the leverage to bomb the shit out of them.

What it comes down to sometimes is that retaliation is more effective than occupation.

imortal wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

They should do a trade for one of the Gitmo detainees. Fair is fair. One kidnapee/PoW for another.

Except that those held by the US are mostly still alive.  American soldiers captured are usually tortured, and found later beheaded or with their throats slit.  Not quite the same in my opinion.

Huh haven't seen a beheading video in a long time. Do they still do that and the media just doesn't cover it or they gave up with the beheading video tactic?

ATG wrote:

Leaflets should be saying;

" attention, your village will be razed by B52 bombers in a carpet depopulation pogrom, kindly gtfo or die ".


This whole Afghanistan thing will end up worse than Vietnam.

Your fucking insane. Yeah, carpet bomb a village and kill civilians, women, children. Smart.

The reason you got your ass handed to you in Vietnam was by doing such things and strengthening local support. Dumb American who learned nothing from the past.

Red Forman wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

The reason you got your ass handed to you in Vietnam

The Americans won damn near every battle.  I guess your definition of ass handing is not the same as mine.

wider context.

Look it up.

Red Forman wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

The Americans won damn near every battle.  I guess your definition of ass handing is not the same as mine.

wider context.

Look it up.

Likewise.  What happened the Soviet Union after that proxy war?

fuck if i care.

Interesting to see all the psychologists, PSYOP experts, and Afghan cultural experts here who are critiquing the leaflets referenced in the articles.

If only there were entire groups of people (including Afghans) who were experts in the tribal issues in the area(s) targeted who crafted the message and pictures to go on the leaflets, then told the US and Afghan military where to distribute them.

If only.

You knuckleheads act like some random soldier got drunk, wrote this on some toilet paper and said "hand THIS shit out, bro!"

Case in point:

In Somalia, some leaflets were distributed that said (roughly) in that region's specific tribal dialect: "The UN is here to feed your children."

The press got hold of it and translated it using Modern Standard Arabic. It (roughly) translated using MSA to: "The UN is here to eat your children."

Hence the use of MSA (vice Iraqi dialect) in the PSYOP leading up to and during the Iraq invasion. So we ended up with Iraqis burying their aircraft instead of grounding them.

The point being that properly targeted PSYOP messages many times do not always translate properly for those whom they were not intended.

FEOS wrote:

Interesting to see all the psychologists, PSYOP experts, and Afghan cultural experts here who are critiquing the leaflets referenced in the articles.

If only there were entire groups of people (including Afghans) who were experts in the tribal issues in the area(s) targeted who crafted the message and pictures to go on the leaflets, then told the US and Afghan military where to distribute them.

If only.

You knuckleheads act like some random soldier got drunk, wrote this on some toilet paper and said "hand THIS shit out, bro!"

Case in point:

In Somalia, some leaflets were distributed that said (roughly) in that region's specific tribal dialect: "The UN is here to feed your children."

The press got hold of it and translated it using Modern Standard Arabic. It (roughly) translated using MSA to: "The UN is here to eat your children."

Hence the use of MSA (vice Iraqi dialect) in the PSYOP leading up to and during the Iraq invasion. So we ended up with Iraqis burying their aircraft instead of grounding them.

The point being that properly targeted PSYOP messages many times do not always translate properly for those whom they were not intended.

Convincing arguments, seeing as how no branch of any military has ever done anything that, in retrospect, was ill-advised.

why cant they just drop a load of 2000lb bombs on every village. war won, job jobbed. After all it seems perfectly fair for them to kill US civillians, and in fact in 9/11 only civillians were targeted by bin laden, no military personel.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Interesting to see all the psychologists, PSYOP experts, and Afghan cultural experts here who are critiquing the leaflets referenced in the articles.

If only there were entire groups of people (including Afghans) who were experts in the tribal issues in the area(s) targeted who crafted the message and pictures to go on the leaflets, then told the US and Afghan military where to distribute them.

If only.

You knuckleheads act like some random soldier got drunk, wrote this on some toilet paper and said "hand THIS shit out, bro!"

Case in point:

In Somalia, some leaflets were distributed that said (roughly) in that region's specific tribal dialect: "The UN is here to feed your children."

The press got hold of it and translated it using Modern Standard Arabic. It (roughly) translated using MSA to: "The UN is here to eat your children."

Hence the use of MSA (vice Iraqi dialect) in the PSYOP leading up to and during the Iraq invasion. So we ended up with Iraqis burying their aircraft instead of grounding them.

The point being that properly targeted PSYOP messages many times do not always translate properly for those whom they were not intended.

Convincing arguments, seeing as how no branch of any military has ever done anything that, in retrospect, was ill-advised.

In Bosnia in 1996, The US Army PSYOP guys released a bunch of flyers that were supposed to say "If you see a landmine, bring it to the attention of IFOR personnel" in Serb-Croat (the local language, obviously).  The flyer actually said "If you see a landmine, bring it to IFOR personnel."  For a couple of weeks there were a bunch of farmers walking up to IFOR checkpoints with armed anti-tank mines.  Luckily, no one was blown up handling armed mines, and no one was shot approching IFOR personnel with them.  They got it fixed, and the issue resolved itself into nothing more than old war stories told over a few beers.  But mistakes do, in fact, happen.

Apparently the reason this guy is kidnapped in the first place is because he was gaurding a post, but he decided to leave his armour and rifle at the post and go for a walkabout on his own. Which led to his capture. If that's true, this guy is facepalm