Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's the problem; you think a statement is evidence; but it's not. only actual events are evidence. The Taliban waited three-four years approximately before they started using suicide bombing as staple tactic against invasion

BY COMMON SENSE: and LOGIC if the War itself caused Suicide Bombings, and not rather seeing AlQaeda apply the tactic, we'd see suicide bombings from the very start of the U.S. ground invasion in 2001.

This is evidence based.

Your alleged evidence , doesn't match the Logical Standard of Correlation.






Notice he's not shifting the responsibility away from the perpetrators


You didn't prerempt me considering I have said this already several times elsewhere; you're not tht incisive bro.



Why didn't they use this last ditch response against the Soviets? the Soviets were much more heinous than NATO is.

Also, you're wrong about the civilian quote as well. He clearly is shifting responsibility. HE is addressing a Western counterpart and noting that the Western counterpart needs to utilize his brain and realize he unleashed this fury with his interventionalism in the old man's country.

You attempting to impose an alternative read into his comment was staved off above.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

i believe i have seen that documentary, that was actually a hezb i islami group they were following. after the failed ambush, they reported to their commander that there were multiple enemy deaths.

i am not claiming the taliban or others directly target civilians, i claim that many times they put civilians in danger and kill them when they set off suicide explosives. but that wasn't even my argument in this thread to begin with. it was that non suicidal attacks that put civilians in harms way are not necessary to fight the enemy as shown by the 80s jihad.

the taliban are not exactly reluctant to get themselves killed while facing an obviously superior enemy. what do u think happens when they fire mortars in the direction of a base or airport and completely miss? they expose themselves and get wiped out. if they are willing to risk their lives for an obvious futile attempt to hurt the enemy, u would think they would at least plan something a little more effective. if the taliban are not trained enough after 17 years of war, and 10 years of this one to figure out tactics to take advantage of their situation, thats their problem.

if they are willing to die on their missions, the most obvious and no brainer attack would be a drive by shooting. foreign soldiers just stand around with their fingers in their noses not expecting it. the fire would be concentrated, and a small group of foreigners could easily be taken out. instead they blow themselves up with a huge blast radius that injures or kills bystanders.

Examining the transcript, this issue with Hezb e Islam also proves you and SXE wrong. The transcript reads:

"NARRATOR: Najibullah found no evidence nearby to support these claims. Indeed, little here was as he expected. It turned out that only a few of these men were mainstream Taliban fighters. Most belonged to an extremist group called Hezb-e-Islami. They're controlled from the mountains near Pakistan by this man, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, a complicated figure who fought the Soviets in the 1980s, was a prime minister of Afghanistan briefly in the '90s, and has now made an alliance among al Qaeda, the Taliban and his own Hezb-e-Islami fighters."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1csU3OvlR

In the past SXE has assessed HEI as being more genuine. Here, it appears the Hezbe have allowed Taliban in their midst. There is a degree of coordination going on here. Sure doesnt accord with the Pakistani conspiracy theory SXE pitched before. After all, why would Engineer Hekmetyar trust them in his fold?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wrong. The supposed clear-and-hold and surge strategies are simple rejoinders that show you are still just grasping at straws. Its up to you to rebut Pape below. Once again, you simply saying its a false correlation does not make it so.

He doesn't show where exactly the suicide bombing happened in precise connection to a NATO action; that's why it's false correlation; that's how false correlation is defined.

That's just how it works.

To reproduce my section on Pape's quote here you go:
[

Exactly this is not Proper Correlation by evidential standards; all he is saying is This happened ...and we also saw this happen. He's not showing that this happened in response to This happening.

That's why it's false correlation.

I seriously suggest you become versed at how to understand the logical consistency of evidence.

This correlates closely with Matt Hoh's assessment on the Afghan side of the border:

The statement however doesn't account for whether or not it's rising because there's more NATO troops performing missions; or because the Taliban are more eager to apply suicide bombings to counterbalance NATO....Theres so many gaps in this correlation it's not analytically valid argument. If it's the later then it's not the troop increase itself that influences suicide bombing, but rather Taliban using negligent strategies deliberately.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Also, you're wrong about the civilian quote as well. He clearly is shifting responsibility. HE is addressing a Western counterpart and noting that the Western counterpart needs to utilize his brain and realize he unleashed this fury with his interventionalism in the old man's country.

You attempting to impose an alternative read into his comment was staved off above.

I don't see where he's shifting responsibility; he's saying that the NATO is manufacturing the Taliban

remember you tried to "Preempt" me? You did so because that is precisely what this statement entails.

he sees the Taliban as an extension of their invasion.

thanks for giving me this one; I'll save these quotes.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Time to go eat. In the mean time SXE, youll have to be more convincing and deal with the fact that Pape's raw dataset itself, without any interpretation of his dataset, shows a greater number of detonations against the pakistani soldiers.

Moreover, you'll need to posit why both Hoh and Pape appear to come to similar conclusions based on info collected by the Afghan Study Group, yet somehow your conclusion of the data trumps theres.

Whether they are authorities or not doesnt matter.. they refer to a data set and they then analyze it and do what most scientists would do: infer a conclusion.

You are proposing an alterate conclusion. I await your joust with Pape and your analysis of the universal raw data set.

If the Tribal Analysis Center was able to access this data independently, then there is no excuse for you not to be able to.

The conclusion of the day here is that your assessments are non evidence based and are merely opinion until proven otherwise.

Last I checked neither Pape nor Hoh were on the Pakistani's pay rolls.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Examining the transcript, this issue with Hezb e Islam also proves you and SXE wrong. The transcript reads:

"NARRATOR: Najibullah found no evidence nearby to support these claims. Indeed, little here was as he expected. It turned out that only a few of these men were mainstream Taliban fighters. Most belonged to an extremist group called Hezb-e-Islami. They're controlled from the mountains near Pakistan by this man, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, a complicated figure who fought the Soviets in the 1980s, was a prime minister of Afghanistan briefly in the '90s, and has now made an alliance among al Qaeda, the Taliban and his own Hezb-e-Islami fighters."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1csU3OvlR

In the past SXE has assessed HEI as being more genuine. Here, it appears the Hezbe have allowed Taliban in their midst. There is a degree of coordination going on here. Sure doesnt accord with the Pakistani conspiracy theory SXE pitched before. After all, why would Engineer Hekmetyar trust them in his fold?

a.)This is a guy's commentary; b) my reference to HIZB HIZB as an example you don't need to suicide bomb and be a Taliban to be against NATO. 3.) tHere's more than one HI group in Afghanistan fighting NATO.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Time to go eat. In the mean time SXE, youll have to be more convincing and deal with the fact that Pape's raw dataset itself, without any interpretation of his dataset, shows a greater number of detonations against the pakistani soldiers.

That's the thing you have to analyze the data because just data itself means nothing you have to look at data in correspondence to testable variables. I work with data analysis at my job. That's how I can look at the data and know both did a shoddy job.

This is not a passable argument.

[randolph85]

Examining the transcript, this issue with Hezb e Islam also proves you and SXE wrong. The transcript reads:

"NARRATOR: Najibullah found no evidence nearby to support these claims. Indeed, little here was as he expected. It turned out that only a few of these men were mainstream Taliban fighters. Most belonged to an extremist group called Hezb-e-Islami. They're controlled from the mountains near Pakistan by this man, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, a complicated figure who fought the Soviets in the 1980s, was a prime minister of Afghanistan briefly in the '90s, and has now made an alliance among al Qaeda, the Taliban and his own Hezb-e-Islami fighters."

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1csU3OvlR

In the past SXE has assessed HEI as being more genuine. Here, it appears the Hezbe have allowed Taliban in their midst. There is a degree of coordination going on here. Sure doesnt accord with the Pakistani conspiracy theory SXE pitched before. After all, why would Engineer Hekmetyar trust them in his fold?

the issue of fighters working for other groups than ones they are affiliated with has less to do with party ideology than geographic considerations. if u read the book i have highlighted, u will find many examples of jamiat shias working with hezb i islami in attacks or visa versa. well the entire documentary is wrong, not me, when its labeled as a talib documentary. not only that, its the fighters who are wrong who lie to their commander in saying there were enemy casualties when there werent in order to save face.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I don't see where he's shifting responsibility; he's saying that the NATO is manufacturing the Taliban

remember you tried to "Preempt" me? You did so because that is precisely what this statement entails.

he sees the Taliban as an extension of their invasion.

thanks for giving me this one; I'll save these quotes.

Wrong, I am happy to oblige you and hope you do save the quote. I preempted you twice today. The first time, you made a massive error when you attempted to refer to the Lee Enfield rifle as superior weaponry so as to say the Taliban were even more culpable since they had weaponry (its not and its British era circa early 1900s and cannot break Kevlar)... The NY Times sniper video and the strategy group describe how when adopting your policy of improving on sniper shots (25% increase) the rise in NATO troop deaths was NOT commensurate.

The second time was with this man's quote where he addresses a Westerner directly, and the Westerner gets the message, noting that the man puts the blame right where he believes it belongs: Onto the people that did not belong there in the first place.

At this point, the onus is on you. No one will accept the idea that if you simply say "So and so is wrong... because I SXE say its so" that it automatically is the case.

You have to read his paper as the princeton group did and provide a rebuttal based on the data.

You prefer to not read it and ask for the data to appear out of thin air. No one will do your homework for you. Its your job to read his paper, visualize his other references, examine his stats, and then provide an adequate discussion regarding where is conclusions stray.

Until then, you simply have not provided an adequate evidence basis for your conspiracy theory that to now consists of the following:

1) Mullah Omar does not exist (not so - ambassadors have met him... Zaeef confirms this in his book)
2) In some convulated way, America created the Taliban (to shoot at its own soldiers???) and pays Pakistan to sustain it purposefully so that it can remain in Afghanistan and prop up Pashtun Nationalists (wrong side of the border)
3) Suicide bombing is explicitly condemned by all scholars of repute (once again, not so if Qardwai is held in esteem)
4) Suicide Bombing is a conspiracy laden tactic to turn the populace towards Toramana (wrong... Pape has proven otherwise)

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's the thing you have to analyze the data because just data itself means nothing you have to look at data in correspondence to testable variables. I work with data analysis at my job. That's how I can look at the data and know both did a shoddy job.

This is not a passable argument.

No, what not passable is that you havent even read the work and are attempting to forcefully prop up your preferrable opinion. Just because you work with data doesnt mean that you intepret it correctly.

As we have said, your job should give you the tools to go to his work, see his references, look at his data, and then derive your own conclusions.

Until then, its just a case of you saying he must be wrong because you said so.

That doesnt fly.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the issue of fighters working for other groups than ones they are affiliated with has less to do with party ideology than geographic considerations. if u read the book i have highlighted, u will find many examples of jamiat shias working with hezb i islami in attacks or visa versa. well the entire documentary is wrong, not me, when its labeled as a talib documentary. not only that, its the fighters who are wrong who lie to their commander in saying there were enemy casualties when there werent in order to save face.

That is not SXE's theory. His theory, which has been undone, even with this minor embed between groups, is this convoluted counterintuitive shadowy conspiracy wherein:

America funds Pakistan to create the Taliban ---> Taliban create the ripe environment for America to invade because this was preplanned ---> Taliban utilize this assymmetric tactic (wittingly or unwittingly) beacuse it benefits America and so America directs Pakistan to continue to promote the Taliban to provide them with the excuse to stay and Toramanaize the region.

If such were the case, I am sure Hezbe would not want the 'American imbeds' amongst them.

It would be as if America would want to sustain casualties to their own unformed men and women. America doesnt need that excuse at all and it knows that irrespective of who it promotes, the natives, no matter if the Islamic fronts reigned fire on civlians, would still not suddenly come to terms with America as a response. They would likely attack both sides.

This idea that Afghans are so incredibly dumb as to make this correlation would mean this conversation between two villagers would go like this:

Abdul Hamid talking to Abdul Majid (two made up characters):

Hamid: Dude, those Taliban guys blew up my sister's kid
Majid: I know man, but they are fighting occupiers man...
Hamid: Are they Majid??? Are they??!!! Why did they have to kill Muneeb? It must mean that they are Pakistani agents
Majid: You think?
Hamid: Yeah, I mean maybe Asfandayaar across the border was right... maybe these dudes are bad biz.
Majid: Yeah, lets go to Forward Operating base Shinwar and talk to Bill and Steve... we can offer to help and take out these guys.
Hamid: And Majid, this whole Islam thing... maybe Asfandyaar is right about this... maybe we are pawns. Maybe Najib was the right man for the job.
Majid: Woh Hamid... take it easy... one advance at a time!

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wrong, I am happy to oblige you and hope you do save the quote. I preempted you twice today.

you can't preempt something I've already stated in other debates of mine you have read. Pre-empt means you had foreknowledge. heh.

The first time, you made a massive error when you attempted to refer to the Lee Enfield rifle as superior weaponry so as to say the Taliban were even more culpable since they had weaponry (its not and its British era circa early 1900s and cannot break Kevlar)...

You were portraying it as a superior weapon not I. I just said if they have other weapons avaiable, which they do. IT's been demonstrated that they do. Even by THEIR OWN admission, they thus have no excuse.

The NY Times sniper video and the strategy group describe how when adopting your policy of improving on sniper shots (25% increase) the rise in NATO troop deaths was NOT commensurate.

I was suggesting A strategy; not THE strategy; the rise in NATO troops isn't really commensurate with suicide bombings either only 1.3% of NATO troops have suffered casualty. If there are 300,000 of them.

The second time was with this man's quote where he addresses a Westerner directly, and the Westerner gets the message, noting that the man puts the blame right where it belongs: Onto the people that did not belong there in the first place.

and he associates the Turban bombers with Westerners. heh

At this point, the onus is on you. No one will accept the idea that if you simply say "So and so is wrong... because I SXE say its so" that it automatically is the case.

The definitions of logic say so; your quotes show they don't match the standards of correlation.

You have to read his paper as the princeton group did and provide a rebuttal based on the data.

You already showed the data; the set of data has no testable variable w

You prefer to not read it and ask for the data to appear out of thin air. No one will do your homework for you.

That's intellectual laziness; the presenter has to present his facts; not tell his audience where they can find the facts.

Its your job to read his paper

It's your job to properly cite evidence which corroborates your points.

Until then, you simply have not provided an adequate evidence basis for your conspiracy theory that to now consists of the following:

You'e misusing conspiracy theory....and also on a tangent.....the evidence was the that your alleged evidence doesn't meet the demands of correlation.

1) Mullah Omar does not exist (not so - ambassadors have met him... Zaeef confirms this in his book)

2) In some convulated way, America created the Taliban (to shoot at its own soldiers???) and pays Pakistan to sustain it purposefully so that it can remain in Afghanistan and prop up Pashtun Nationalists (wrong side of the border)

They're a byproduct of American policies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

3) Suicide bombing is explicitly condemned by all scholars of repute (once again, not so if Qardwai is held in esteem)

The Sunni Ulama don't take Qaradawi as credible.

[quote[4) Suicide Bombing is a conspiracy laden tactic to turn the populace towards Toramana (wrong... Pape has proven otherwise)[/QUOTE]

No Pape made a statement; just saying a comment is not proving otherwise; and your Old Man's comment shows Afghans believe the same thing, that the Taliban are an offshoot of the NATO agenda to ruin Afghan society.

[randolph85]

i dont exactly agree with everything edge says but its not any more far fetched as the current situation which is spoon fed to the public. the issue is not black and white obviously and there are many considerations.

look at the issue of AQ for example. many talib supporters say they are a western supported entity created in order to create a pretext for imperialism, yet the taliban have never denounced them. u have AQ leadership publicly taking credit for 9/11, and denouncing iran because iran claims 9/11 was a western conspiracy. the same muslims who support the taliban but denounce 9/11 claims against muslims are living in a paradox.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That is not SXE's theory. His theory, which has been undone, even with this minor embed between groups, is this convoluted counterintuitive shadowy conspiracy wherein:

even if it's not my theory; it debunks your scapegoat.

If such were the case, I am sure Hezbe would not want the 'American imbeds' amongst them.

Or perhaps they're as blind sided, the guys statement itself however is a commentary and not proof.

It would be as if America would want to sustain casualties to their own unformed men and women.

Usually poor underprivileged blacks and hispanics or poor whites who they'd have to pay combat pay for. It's not unreasonable to believe they're expendable

much like using Pashtun tribals to fight the Taliban and get killed by the thousands in Pakistan.

America doesnt need that excuse at all and it knows that irrespective of who it promotes, the natives, no matter if the Islamic fronts reigned fire on civlians, would still not suddenly come to terms with America as a response. They would likely attack both sides.

Of course they do; otherwise they wouldn't have this "Win their hearts and minds campaign".

This idea that Afghans are so incredibly dumb as to make this correlation would mean this conversation between two villagers would go like this:

Abdul Hamid talking to Abdul Majid (two made up characters):

Hamid: Dude, those Taliban guys blew up my sister's kid
Majid: I know man, but they are fighting occupiers man...
Hamid: Are they Majid??? Are they??!!! Why did they have to kill Muneeb? It must mean that they are Pakistani agents

It's funny your quote by that Old man basically confirms this sentiment. LOL

[BarakzaiAbdali]

you can't preempt something I've already stated in other debates of mine you have read. Pre-empt means you had foreknowledge. heh.




You were portraying it as a superior weapon not I. I just said if they have other weapons avaiable, which they do. IT's been demonstrated that they do. Even by THEIR OWN admission, they thus have no excuse.


I was suggesting A strategy; not THE strategy; the rise in NATO troops isn't really commensurate with suicide bombings either only 1.3% of NATO troops have suffered casualty. If there are 300,000 of them.



and he associates the Turban bombers with Westerners. heh



The definitions of logic say so; your quotes show they don't match the standards of correlation.



You already showed the data; the set of data has no testable variable w



That's intellectual laziness; the presenter has to present his facts; not tell his audience where they can find the facts.



It's your job to properly cite evidence which corroborates your points.


You'e misusing conspiracy theory....and also on a tangent.....the evidence was the that your alleged evidence doesn't meet the demands of correlation.

1) Mullah Omar does not exist (not so - ambassadors have met him... Zaeef confirms this in his book)



They're a byproduct of American policies in the Middle East and Central Asia.



The Sunni Ulama don't take Qaradawi as credible.

[quote[4) Suicide Bombing is a conspiracy laden tactic to turn the populace towards Toramana (wrong... Pape has proven otherwise)

No Pape made a statement; just saying a comment is not proving otherwise; and your Old Man's comment shows Afghans believe the same thing, that the Taliban are an offshoot of the NATO agenda to ruin Afghan society.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, he says you brought he turbaned ones. Not you ARE the turbaned ones.

And no Pape's statement and series of analyses on suicide bombing cover a host of movements, including the Tamil bombings, FARC events, etc. The Afghan front was one set of data he examined. That set of data is discussed with the Princeton group.

You are also wrong about how papers are written. Pape wrote the paper and does detail where he got the facts. Now its your job to read the paper. Thats how it works.

If Norm Finkelstein writes a book on israel and says, per human rights watch, israel killed 5 Palestinians per day in December (5)

5 - Human Rights Watch 2011 statistics

Its your job to go read the Human Rights Watch stats he references. That is the whole reason he references them in the first place.

The data does not need a testable variable. Its retrospective. Thats basic.

So as I said, if this is your job, then until we see your point by point to Chapter 6 of Dying to Win and until we see you show us why Matt Hoh's Study Group data doesnt jive with his conclusion, we just are left with your opinion, which is just that, an opinion.