Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Its time to lay down the arms brother. Just accept the fact that the insurgency in all its pieces and ends of the spectrum are fighting to oust occupation, including Mullah Omar's faction. Otherwise, we are just going to ender the illigocscimitarioexvacuo logical loop again wherein some dark master plan takes the shadowy Hamid Gul to Tank on a daily basis to act as the evil genie in Aladdin and focus his heat and anger on the heroine, Malalai Joya. I mean come on SXE, this ass backwards theory sounds like some sort of Romance Novel or Soap Opera.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

but I dealt with pape ...it's you who cn't deal with Pape, you feel Pape merely having data is enough ....which is faulty in itself you don't want to admit that Pape's Argument is a Logical Fallacy.

What's ironic is Soldat has presented similar arguments and you debunked him on the same grounds; when he tried to use referential data. It seems however you hold a different standard for yourself

Once again, if someone shows smoking correlations in the population
couples this to histological data that seems to show small cell cancers correlate with smoking as well and couples this to cessation risk it completely emulates Pape's multiple data fronts concept (thats exactly why he used that example in the beginning of the lecture).

I am really glad you do not run the FDA or government regulatory agencies because by your logic, I would be barred from telling Patients smoking causes lung cancer. It would be absurd.

Hoh's study group data 100% corroborates Pape independently. So as I said, I need not repeat myself because until you confront the raw data, address the paper in a point by point fashion, and address the correlation of correlations that Pape set up, his logical theory sounds much more reasonable and with precedent than yours.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are also copping out with the "corrrelations dont mean causality" biz to avoid taking responsibility for addressing the correlation itself.

That's how logic works if people like yourself could just dispense with logical consistency of an argument or something claimed as evidence; then you can write whatever narrative you want and that can be passed as truth. The Logical relationships of something demonstrate if the person actually did their homework or they merely jumped to conclusions unmeritedly


The reason you cling to Pape so badly; is because you have nothing else to validate Pape.....which shows how scant the legitimacy of Taliban tactics really are.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Its time to lay down the arms brother. Just accept the fact that the insurgency in all its pieces and ends of the spectrum are fighting to oust occupation,

So basically you're saying ignore the faultiness of your evidence and just accept things as fact for the sake of passing off the Taliban mythology?

That's called propaganda dude, forget that.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's how logic works if people like yourself could just dispense with logical consistency of an argument or something claimed as evidence; then you can write whatever narrative you want and that can be passed as truth. The Logical relationships of something demonstrate if the person actually did their homework or they merely jumped to conclusions unmeritedly


The reason you cling to Pape so badly; is because you have nothing else to validate Pape.....which shows how scant the legitimacy of Taliban tactics really are.

Wrong, Hoh's commentary and Afghan study group data does the same. Also logical consistency lays not in inventing the most outlandish narrative in history above in regard to Mullah Omar and his faction.

So as I said, multiple fronts now confirm that the Pashtuns are a people that refuse occupation... and when the odds are stacked as assymetric as they are... they will fight and they will fight to the bitter end.

If you choose to hang them out to dry in order to back some convoluted ahistorical, non evidence based set of theories, then of course Pape will be the beign of your existence! loool.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Exactly Barakzai, they do the same thing. THE EXACT SAME THING, make the same logical fallacy; whic basically makes the same faulty argument.

you're catching on now

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So basically you're saying ignore the faultiness of your evidence and just accept things as fact for the sake of passing off the Taliban mythology?

That's called propaganda dude, forget that.

No, its called evidence and Robert Pape's data and series of supportive correlations that, if causality had to be presumed, the pvalue just avoids one being able to endorse your theory as anywhere near the reality of the ground level situation.

What now are Pape and Hoh involved in this shadowy support the Taliban effort?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Exactly Barakzai, they do the same thing. THE EXACT SAME THING, make the same logical fallacy; whic basically makes the same faulty argument.

you're catching on now

you mean they basically do what scientists do:
collect data ---> analyze it ---> infer a relationship where the data points if the correlations are strong.

the laughable thing about your rejoinder is that you are implying the causal variable is suicide bombing and the effect is ISAF presence, yet he destroys that arugment with the timing and the spike in events with ISAF's movements. He does this not only for Afghanistan, but for FATA, and for Iraq. And oh my, so Hoh decided to also not consider your completely implausible theory of the bait tactic of suicidality all leading back to an ISI orchestrated plan. Can you blame him? No one considers it because it lacks merit as a consideration!

So Im sorry man, you lost again in this. I cannot believe that it is this hard for you to accept facts.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

By the way Akhtaar dhey Mubarakshaa. No hard feelings, but like I said, I cannot in good faith accept any of your proposed hypothesis regarding suicide bombing, its root causes, why the Taliban use it, and who they are when its convoluted and lacking in firm ground level logic, reality, and evidence (as per Pape and Hoh).

[ScimitarXEdge]

No, its called evidence and Robert Pape's data and series of supportive correlations that, if causality had to be presumed, the pvalue just avoids one being able to endorse your theory as anywhere near the reality of the ground level situation.

What now are Pape and Hoh involved in this shadowy support the Taliban effort?

But it can't be evidence when evidence is not consistent with the rigor needed to be support an argument.

Do you even understand the relevance of a P value ...if so please explain it; and I'll explain exactly how mentioning P-Values demonstrates nothing in favor of the argument.

[ScimitarXEdge]

By the way Akhtaar dhey Mubarakshaa. No hard feelings, but like I said, I cannot in good faith accept any of your proposed hypothesis regarding suicide bombing, its root causes, why the Taliban use it, and who they are when its convoluted and lacking in firm ground level logic, reality, and evidence (as per Pape and Hoh).

staso hum mubarak sha.

that's fine you don't have to accept it; I howver am under no obligation o give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt or validate their existence.

It's an issue of simple logic for me; when a group of people are claiming to fight against an invader for oppressing or murdering it's people it makes no sense to cause the deaths of more of your people by using tactics which would guarantee it.

Which is what I find with the Taliban. This is minus the Taliban's past crimes against other Muslims/Afghan civilians.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But it can't be evidence when evidence is not consistent with the rigor needed to be support an argument.

Do you even understand the relevance of a P value ...if so please explain it; and I'll explain exactly how mentioning P-Values demonstrates nothing in favor of the argument.

The evidence is clearly rigorous enough when it includes the full universe of data sample points. Its a complete data base of all suicide bombings done, not just in Afghanistan, but in Tamil areas, Iraq, FATA, etc. So you lose there as well. Cannot get more rigorous than that.

What is not rigorous is the assumption that Hamid Gul gets in his low rider and dresses up as Mullah Omar.

Sorry, we shall stay focused on the fact your evidence for your theory is sorely lacking and Pape has provided a smashing rebuttal that has devastated your theories.

You have the raw data sets, and we await your measures of statistical significance. After all, this is your job right? So Pape's paper deserves your attention and the data is all conveniently logged for you in the universal database.

The issue of p values and t values and what not is your choice of what to use.

Until you do so, you've got no ground to stand on. Its just you saying:

I choose to believe my conspiracy theory and I will do so in the face of my own flimsy evidence and I cannot deal with Pape's work for the concern and fear that it undoes my whole premise (by the way one need utilize stats to debunk your theory - the value that Pakistan places on strategic depth alone makes the basis look utterly utterly utterly incredulous).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

staso hum mubarak sha.

that's fine you don't have to accept it; I howver am under no obligation o give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt or validate their existence.

It's an issue of simple logic for me; when a group of people are claiming to fight against an invader for oppressing or murdering it's people it makes no sense to cause the deaths of more of your people by using tactics which would guarantee it.

Which is what I find with the Taliban. This is minus the Taliban's past crimes against other Muslims/Afghan civilians.

Well there are other holes in your theory as well. FOr instance you previously cited Sayaaf as an example of a commander that valued human life. In reality, Central Intelligence has noted that he had not dissolved his miltia, gave Bin Ladin's men the access to Masood, and may very well be the reason that the insurgents are able to infiltrate Afghan National Army bases. For that matter, Sayyaf has yet to criticize Omar.

But the Pape data merely buttresses what we set out to do which was

1. Show that it is a tactic utilized by the downtrodden in the face of massive assymetry (refer to NY Times videos, discussion of the adopting of Lee Enfield Rifles)
2. Its use is a result of NATO's idiotic occupation of a country as opposed to the instigator of the occupation.

With this in mind, whatever my personal disagreements with the Taliban, I for one will not do those fighting for Afghanistan's freedom harm by demoralizing them.

Otherwise, the option that you promoted with those videos of the various politicians who speak from the stump lead down the Red Indian man's path:
acceptance of a nonexistent government that has no writ --> settlement ---> sustained occupation ---> destruction of the Afghan nation and the loss of its blood and treasure.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Barakzai ...earlier you said that these data sets don't need testing right?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai ...earlier you said that these data sets don't need testing right?

I dont think I said that. I said that you need to examine Pape's data, confirm his correlations exist, determine the r, the p, the t and whatever else you statisticians do and deal with the numbers because you are questioning the veracity of the correlation. He had detailed them in Dying to Win with graphs charts numbers as he presented.

Your rejoinder was that you accept the data exists and that maybe even the correlation exists but that causality cannot be inferred as alternate theories exist.

My response is that your alternate theories rely on WEAK correlations and then you shifted your criticism to the data analysis itself.

So I said, fine then

1. Read pape's seminal work (his paper and his book)
2. Show us your reconstructed correlation graphs
3. Show us alternative correlations based on the variables and show us stronger correlations with greater significance
4. pape tied his correlation to ISAF movements as per UN and NATO maps of troop movements and then did an excellent superb job of doing the same for Musharraf's troop incursions into FATA.
5. 4 points out that more Pakistani soldiers are being hit in this game than Americans are

5 and the rest basically hang your theory out to dry.

I do not get what is so hard to understnad here SXE, no existent data evidence or narrative even supports your theory.

I am under the impression that even if we sat Ahmad Rashid down, who you referenced, he would look at your theory of some sinsiter Hamid Gul being Mullah Omar ---> the idea that Pakistan is using suicide bombers to keep Nato in Afghanistan because they are on board with the American agenda to the DETRIMENT should America stay for their idiotic strategic depth policy as absurd.

No data, no common sense, and no supporting circumstantial support = failed theory.