i don't think this is a good deal more perverted than being embedded to other participants of war
Nice PR for medal of honor
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Good point i share it, Bit more dangerous tho - don't you think ?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i don't think this is a good deal more perverted than being embedded to other participants of war
Shahter wrote:
really? and just how many of them are educated enough to understand the processes involved?
rdx-fx wrote:
Insha'Allah
that is all they generally feel the need to understand about complex topics outside their personal experience.
Welcome to the world of the religious fanatic. They are not in their right mind, by our standards. The superstitious, the irrational, the illogical, the everpresent "Insha'Allah! Your argument is invalid! debate over!" whenever something doesn't fit into their narrow worldview.Shahter wrote:
i know that. you brought them taking credit for ussr downfall as something worthy of consideration, man.
[...] nobody in their right mind would take that crap seriously, just as with mujahedeen claiming to have "killed the bear".
(Wonderful debating technique. I'm sure there's a few D&ST regulars that'd love to have such a debating tool at their disposal...)
It doesn't have to make sense. It is part of their belief structure, part of their world view. To deal with them, you have to understand them through the lens of such distortions.
Edit: To be fair, religious fanatics of all flavors have some variant of "Insha'Allah! Your argument is invalid! debate over!". Catholic, Evangelical, Televagelical, Islamic, or any other variety. The fanatics have more in common with each other than anyone else, really. Tell them that, though, and you're going to get burnt, excommunicated, damned, thrown on a cross, and beheaded.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-30 12:16:36)
It would seem, yes, that only non-combatants get something chopped off in front of TV cameras but were there really no soldiers who shared the same fate? What about that young Israeli soldier, Ha... something, whatever happened to him?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Your point ( and it was Valid ) was they chop of the heads during captivity on camera and usually its a Non combatant that suffers..Sup wrote:
well chopping heads off kinda does make them terroristsBN wrote:
Are they really terrorists?
If someone invaded my country and I fought back that would not make me a terrorist.
You need to be more clear because the typical comeback argument uses obtuseness as its base strategy,
( One can only hope its deliberate ) that or they just sling insults.
Yeah the documentary he's making, not his personal story so much.Spark wrote:
His story is complete. He didn't exactly set out to cover them, he just got swept on and then decided that rather than risk being shot or worse would film for a while (I'm guessing) but was rescued a few days later.Jaekus wrote:
I just hope he can complete his story. It would surely be quite some account to be told.
EDIT: Oh you mean the documentary he's making? Hm, how much of it is done?
You forgot zionist-jewish, actually they're the worst.rdx-fx wrote:
Edit: To be fair, religious fanatics of all flavors have some variant of "Insha'Allah! Your argument is invalid! debate over!". Catholic, Evangelical, Televagelical, Islamic, or any other variety. The fanatics have more in common with each other than anyone else, really. Tell them that, though, and you're going to get burnt, excommunicated, damned, thrown on a cross, and beheaded.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-30 17:50:18)
Fuck Israel
harmour proven to be a literal retard and not continuing to post in his own thread non shocker.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
no need to be rude TedFatherTed wrote:
harmour proven to be a literal retard and not continuing to post in his own thread non shocker.
And American journalists embedded with US troops don't?Trotskygrad wrote:
Ok yeah, apparently this journalist is fine standing by while US soldiers die.
OK
lolAll we need now is Jane Fonda on an AA gun moment.
good. about time. we get enough cameras in our faces.
really? you are telling that to me? gee... i live in russia, dude, i've just about the most idiotic christians on earth - orthodox - all around me here. thanks, but i know exactly how fucked up religious cretins are.rdx-fx wrote:
Welcome to the world of the religious fanatic. They are not in their right mind, by our standards. The superstitious, the irrational, the illogical, the everpresent "Insha'Allah! Your argument is invalid! debate over!" whenever something doesn't fit into their narrow worldview.
(Wonderful debating technique. I'm sure there's a few D&ST regulars that'd love to have such a debating tool at their disposal...)
right, and here we come back to the OP and how to win the war against these people:rdx-fx wrote:
It doesn't have to make sense. It is part of their belief structure, part of their world view. To deal with them, you have to understand them through the lens of such distortions.
tell me, honestly, do you really think you can beat these people at their own game on their own turf? really? you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years? or do you think that you'll be able to recruit those people to work for you? how? you've nothing to buy them with and nothing to interest them in. stop deluding yourself, your past history with these people leaves you with nothing whatsoever you can use to influence 'em, save, as i said already, overwhelming force.
Last edited by Shahter (2010-08-30 22:44:23)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I don't like getting fisted by the entire bf2s community, but I think I'll join in anyway.
That reporter is extremely lucky to have not been killed by that AC130. He has bigger balls than a lot of us here. So long as he isn't helping the terrorists in any way I do not see a problem here.
My Father (He was in the Swiss Army) went to Afghanistan in the '80s during the war as a "Reporter", it's really interesting listening to all the stories he has. He was with the Taliban for a few months.
That reporter is extremely lucky to have not been killed by that AC130. He has bigger balls than a lot of us here. So long as he isn't helping the terrorists in any way I do not see a problem here.
My Father (He was in the Swiss Army) went to Afghanistan in the '80s during the war as a "Reporter", it's really interesting listening to all the stories he has. He was with the Taliban for a few months.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Clearly you don't understand the point of counterinsurgency. It is about legitimacy, not about beating the other side with force. It is about ensuring the population views the current governmental arrangement as more legitimate in meeting their needs (see Maslow) than the alternative--and the Taliban's goal is the opposite. That is why their insurgency is a pseudo-Maoist insurgency, setting up shadow governments in areas they control, providing services for the populace in those areas. Unfortunately for them, it just serves to remind the people of what they can expect when the Taliban run things (public stonings, for example).Shahter wrote:
right, and here we come back to the OP and how to win the war against these people:
tell me, honestly, do you really think you can beat these people at their own game on their own turf? really? you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years? or do you think that you'll be able to recruit those people to work for you? how? you've nothing to buy them with and nothing to interest them in. stop deluding yourself, your past history with these people leaves you with nothing whatsoever you can use to influence 'em, save, as i said already, overwhelming force.
If anyone's past history with these people leaves them little room to maneuver on this topic, it is Mother Russia.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lol. of course! they are going to choose foreign invaders! they don't do public beheadings - instead, they bomb from above! it's so very much better.FEOS wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the point of counterinsurgency. It is about legitimacy, not about beating the other side with force. It is about ensuring the population views the current governmental arrangement as more legitimate in meeting their needs (see Maslow) than the alternative--and the Taliban's goal is the opposite. That is why their insurgency is a pseudo-Maoist insurgency, setting up shadow governments in areas they control, providing services for the populace in those areas. Unfortunately for them, it just serves to remind the people of what they can expect when the Taliban run things (public stonings, for example).Shahter wrote:
right, and here we come back to the OP and how to win the war against these people:
tell me, honestly, do you really think you can beat these people at their own game on their own turf? really? you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years? or do you think that you'll be able to recruit those people to work for you? how? you've nothing to buy them with and nothing to interest them in. stop deluding yourself, your past history with these people leaves you with nothing whatsoever you can use to influence 'em, save, as i said already, overwhelming force.
and that has what to do exactly with this discussion?FEOS wrote:
If anyone's past history with these people leaves them little room to maneuver on this topic, it is Mother Russia.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Like I said:Shahter wrote:
lol. of course! they are going to choose foreign invaders! they don't do public beheadings - instead, they bomb from above! it's so very much better.FEOS wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the point of counterinsurgency. It is about legitimacy, not about beating the other side with force. It is about ensuring the population views the current governmental arrangement as more legitimate in meeting their needs (see Maslow) than the alternative--and the Taliban's goal is the opposite. That is why their insurgency is a pseudo-Maoist insurgency, setting up shadow governments in areas they control, providing services for the populace in those areas. Unfortunately for them, it just serves to remind the people of what they can expect when the Taliban run things (public stonings, for example).Shahter wrote:
right, and here we come back to the OP and how to win the war against these people:
tell me, honestly, do you really think you can beat these people at their own game on their own turf? really? you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years? or do you think that you'll be able to recruit those people to work for you? how? you've nothing to buy them with and nothing to interest them in. stop deluding yourself, your past history with these people leaves you with nothing whatsoever you can use to influence 'em, save, as i said already, overwhelming force.
The central government (and provincial governments) are not "foreign invaders". They are Afghan, as well. And the ROE the Coalition are fighting under (that would include ANA, as well) have very strict proscription on the use of indirect fire.Clearly you don't understand the point of counterinsurgency. It is about legitimacy, not about beating the other side with force. It is about ensuring the population views the current governmental arrangement as more legitimate in meeting their needs (see Maslow) than the alternative
Read what you wrote again, then realize that the USSR's failure in Afghanistan is actually a source of valuable lessons on what not to do there. Just because that's what Soviet Russia did, that doesn't mean that's the approach everyone else is going to take--it's certainly not the approach the ISAF is taking.Shahter wrote:
and that has what to do exactly with this discussion?FEOS wrote:
If anyone's past history with these people leaves them little room to maneuver on this topic, it is Mother Russia.
This is the basis of COIN strategy: let the host nation do what needs to be done with decreasing levels of support. That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan.Shahter wrote:
you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think you mean "Mash' Allah" - as in God wants sth to happen.rdx-fx wrote:
The superstitious, the irrational, the illogical, the everpresent "Insha'Allah! Your argument is invalid! debate over!" whenever something doesn't fit into their narrow worldview.
ƒ³
nothing is happening in afghanistan. mark my words - you will leave, and they will return to the state they were at before you invaded.FEOS wrote:
This is the basis of COIN strategy: let the host nation do what needs to be done with decreasing levels of support. That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
They may. It is totally dependent on the people and what they want. If they go back to providing safehavens for transnational terrorist groups, they will have more hate rained upon their heads.Shahter wrote:
nothing is happening in afghanistan. mark my words - you will leave, and they will return to the state they were at before you invaded.FEOS wrote:
This is the basis of COIN strategy: let the host nation do what needs to be done with decreasing levels of support. That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And so the cycle quickens.FEOS wrote:
They may. It is totally dependent on the people and what they want. If they go back to providing safehavens for transnational terrorist groups, they will have more hate rained upon their heads.
Fuck Israel
Didn't read the whole thing, but good for the journalist. It's easy for other news sources to point the finger and cast him aside for being evil but he's doing something that is bigger then what they've ever done with his time. Once this "Conflict" is over, all there will be is History on it and showing as much of the History as possible is a great thing.
Even though it's a war this guy is documenting their lives and it will even benefit our Armed Forces at the end.
We have troops over there like crazy, don't think that they're not going to be able to recognize land scape.
Even though it's a war this guy is documenting their lives and it will even benefit our Armed Forces at the end.
We have troops over there like crazy, don't think that they're not going to be able to recognize land scape.
No.oug wrote:
I think you mean "Mash' Allah" - as in God wants sth to happen.
Mash'Allah is used with a positive connotation, Insha'allah is neutral or negative.
Mash'Allah would be used if they were agreeing with your argument, perhaps.
Insha'Allah is dismissive, or disagreeing in connotation.
Like asking them to do some actual physical work, and getting a sigh, a shrug, eye avoidance, and a muttered Insha'allah as they wander off.
If you think that is my premise, you've not read what I've posted in this thread.Shahter wrote:
right, and here we come back to the OP and how to win the war against these people:
tell me, honestly, do you really think you can beat these people at their own game on their own turf? really? you do think you are going to be able to manipulate them better than those who live among them and bear the culture that's been developing there for, what, hundreds of years? or do you think that you'll be able to recruit those people to work for you? how? you've nothing to buy them with and nothing to interest them in. stop deluding yourself, your past history with these people leaves you with nothing whatsoever you can use to influence 'em, save, as i said already, overwhelming force.
What we do isn't so much the issue.
It's the brutality of the other side that is essential to current strategy.
If we bombed the living dogshit out of them (as the Soviets did), we are not going to be seen as less brutal than the Taliban.
Our problem right now, is that we are being too soft. As they see it, we cannot be hard enough to protect them from Taliban retribution.
Then again, that only encourages the Taliban in their excessive brutality, more making us seem the lesser of two evils.
See how that works?
(The nastier the Taliban is, the more appealing the US looks, in a gross oversimplification)
To win, you do not play the enemy's game on the enemy's terms. No, to win, you change the rules of the game, so the enemy is playing the wrong game. (Screw Clausewitz, study Kodokan Judo)
Fanatics are going to be fanatics, regardless of what we say or do.
Let them keep throwing themselves into the grinder of the US Military.
We are not there to build Empire- that's an outdated, obsolete European thing from the last century.
We've got everything from Alaskan arctic, to Hawaiian tropics, and more than enough land inbetween.
Empire is not in our interests. Stable Middle East, favorable to doing business with the West is in our interests.
Wahabbiist Sunni extremists, the Taliban, and Ahmadamnutjob's Iranian regime are not favorable to a stable middle east...
Edit: from below here, my post reads more like party-line COIN, if you've not read anything else I've posted on the topic.
It is the moderates we are courting.
The moderate Pashtun that just want to live their lives without the interference of Al Quaeda, the Taliban, or Western armies stomping around their hills.
The moderates in Kandahar and Karachi, who want a stable, peaceful, strong government to help them live in a peaceful environment.
The moderate Sunni, the ethnic minorities, and all the others that are 'apostate' to the Taliban extremists, and therefore just as much worthy of death as the Western infidels.
These are the people we can help.
And, if they look at our history, they know we are going to leave as soon as things settle down (or we get bored) - as well as they know the Taliban and Al Quaeda are not going to leave.
[sarcasm]
oh.. did i write Karachi, as in Karachi Pakistan, up there? oops.. how awkward...
Would be just terrible if the Taliban and Al Quaeda took over Pakistan, and we had to go in and rescue the 'legitimate' government, ala Kuwait in 1991. If only there were some natural disaster, that gave the Taliban and Al Quaeda an opportunity to try to use our own COIN strategy against us there... 'cause, y'know, the Pakistani ISI has been so good to us all these years...
[/sarcasm]
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-31 22:30:37)
all the evidence so far points at how it doesn't work. they won't "look at your history" (which, as always, can be presented in a lot of ways), they aren't interested in you at all, dude. you invaded their country, that's all that matters to them.rdx-fx wrote:
See how that works?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
You keep saying this as if it is self-evident when it very well isn't.Shahter wrote:
all the evidence so far points at how it doesn't work. they won't "look at your history" (which, as always, can be presented in a lot of ways), they aren't interested in you at all, dude. you invaded their country, that's all that matters to them.rdx-fx wrote:
See how that works?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman