Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[ScimitarXEdge]

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.

Actually that's what I am trained to do; identify data misallocation because this prevents accurate modeling.



You quoted these guys FOR me; you handed their heads on a platter. Both of them basically said " this happened ...and then this happened sometime after...therefore A caused B"

this is terrible data analysis; and can't be evidence; read your own quotations by both authors.

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.

My conclusions are, he's done a bad job in fact this is common amongst social science oriented data collection and analysis. The evidence has been

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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


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



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.


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:



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

Wrong, the old man confirms that Afghans understand the correlation that Westerners poured in, and suicide bombs went up concordantly. Otherwise, you're imposing your thought processes on him, as I showed you would do.

^ The rest of the above is theory. The onus is on you to show us that Najibullah Quereshi is less trustworthy than say, Ahmad Rashid. Isnt that one of your logic errors?

Regarding the Lee Enfield discussion, you are wrong there as well. You refuse to address your tactic at play in the field (when shown this you said its A tactic not THE tactic). When shows battlefield proof that increasing sniper skills is not a payoff, and coupling that to the fact that a 25% increase in sniping did not concord to an increased NATO death load, you dismissed it with "oh well they have weaponry though..."

Thats just stating the obvious.. the picture of the weapons locker showed this. Its the fact that the weaponry is archaic and the assymetry is profound and that even when they utilize your preferred modality, it fails.

This concords clearly with Pape's assertion of why they rely then on suicide bombing.

In fact, that was a part of Pape's response to the Princeton group in that paper i linked. He delineates the fact that the bomb stop going off when the Americans leave a region.

Bottom line: Americans out ---> Assymetry reduced ---> suicide bombers recede.

Until we see your evidence based response, its just you repeating yourself saying that Pape's conclusions are wrong. That doesnt make it so. We need more than that. Put those mathematics skills to use on this. I would be interested to see your detailed rebuttal to Hoh and Pape. Otherwise, your criticism is incomplete.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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

Now that counter argument is grasping for straws; and bringing them means they're apart of the same nexus associated together

You're debunked your own argument here.

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.

I didn't deny where he got facts , but where the information he got demonstrates there is a Contingent mapping between a increased suicide bombing and NATO increase

without that, he's merely masturbating with numbers.

Its your job to go read the Human Rights Watch stats he references.

It's your job to present your argument with the proper citations; it's strange how adamant you were with Soldat Amr; but you're laxed about this on yourself.

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

Then it's not rigorous and therefore can't be genuine evidence.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Actually that's what I am trained to do; identify data misallocation because this prevents accurate modeling.



You quoted these guys FOR me; you handed their heads on a platter. Both of them basically said " this happened ...and then this happened sometime after...therefore A caused B"

this is terrible data analysis; and can't be evidence; read your own quotations by both authors.




My conclusions are, he's done a bad job in fact this is common amongst social science oriented data collection and analysis. The evidence has been

Wrong, once again, you saying its terrible because its terribly inconvenient for your incorrect theory doesnt make it actually terrible. Whats terrible is that you are unable to analyze their work in a meaningful critique in the way that the Princeton group did. Otherwise, its just you saying that he imposed a conclusion. If the correlations support his theory, then its a valid supposition. At this juncture, we have yet to hear your rebuttal based on teh data. All we have is you saying: "I wont read the paper because I believe its wrong... moreover, Ill keep saying its wrong and hope that by saying it enough it becomes that."

[randolph85]

the fact that mullah omar needs to tell his soldiers in his recent message not to harm civilians and that there would be penalties for doing so should tell the story here.

after 10 years of war, and 17 years of the taliban movement which was initially known for justice despite its repressive ways, the leader still needs to send out highly profile messages which include pentalties for misconduct. if there were no troubles in this regard, there would be no need for such a message.

i don't trust a man who refuses who show his subjects his face, after all, he is the commander of the faithful, right? but i don't think he orders the killings of innocents. that puts him in the same league as ahmad shah massoud, both incompetent and not suited for the self proclaimed titles or the ones bestowed upon them.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wrong, once again, you saying its terrible because its terribly inconvenient for your incorrect theory doesnt make it actually terrible. Whats terrible is that you are unable to analyze their work in a meaningful critique in the way that the Princeton group did. Otherwise, its just you saying that he imposed a conclusion. If the correlations support his theory, then its a valid supposition. At this juncture, we have yet to hear your rebuttal based on teh data. All we have is you saying: "I wont read the paper because I believe its wrong... moreover, Ill keep saying its wrong and hope that by saying it enough it becomes that."

No it's terrible because it's a logical fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Now that counter argument is grasping for straws; and bringing them means they're apart of the same nexus associated together

You're debunked your own argument here.

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.



I didn't deny where he got facts , but where the information he got demonstrates there is a Contingent mapping between a increased suicide bombing and NATO increase

without that, he's merely masturbating with numbers.





It's your job to present your argument with the proper citations; it's strange how adamant you were with Soldat Amr; but you're laxed about this on yourself.



Then it's not rigorous and therefore can't be genuine evidence.

Wrong, the citation is the paper. Pape is the reference and you are unwilling to deal with the numbers. Thats the reference point for rigorous. Soldat's duty is to provide the reference (for instance, he provided one to an Indian author) and its my job to go and examine it (which I did). You on the other hand are merely hoping that by asserting the reference is wrong, because you disagree with him, are hoping that the number crunching comes out to that, but thats where its your job to pull up his work and provide the critique. Im not going to do your job for you, otherwise it wouldnt be your job. Moreover, he describes the 2005 spike and the contingent rise, so now its your job to read that paper and read his text as is referenced, and deal with his numbers. Otherwise, its just you saying hes wrong, which is just you repeating a fallacy, hoping its correct.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No it's terrible because it's a logical fallacy.

No, its terrible because you cannot deal with the paper directly and are dismissing the conclusions because you refuse to read the paper that analyzes a data set and comes to different conclusions than your own. Thats the logic error here. Labeling things in Latin in this case is merely labeling them, not answering the problem at hand. We can call this error Scimitaria Logica Erratum. See? its just a name... means nothing (though in this case it does).

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wrong, the citation is the paper. Pape is the reference and you are unwilling to deal with the numbers. Thats the reference point for rigorous.

I don't think you understood what I meant about Data Mapping; this is not showing where the data comes from, in terms of a physical location. In Numerical Analysis; if you have a set of data and there's another set of data,. the mapping of the data will have an image in the other data set, which corresponds between both data points; this is how we generate models.

[ScimitarXEdge]

No, its terrible because you cannot deal with the paper directly and are dismissing the conclusions because you refuse to read the paper that analyzes a data set and comes to different conclusions than your own. Thats the logic error here. Labeling things in Latin in this case is merely labeling them, not answering the problem at hand. We can call this error Scimitaria Logica Erratum. See? its just a name... means nothing (though in this case it does).

I did he's making a fallacious correlation; it lacks an explanation on data mapping. which is what I have tried to explain to you in as laymen's term as possible.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

By the way, the statement that the sunni ulema do not take Qardwai as credible is ludicrous. I may not take him as wholesome, but you have no validating evidence to back up that statement either. Basically you stated earlier that Saudi commentary is ultimately dismissable because it come from within wahhabite confines (one of those logic errors that you accused others of making)... now you state Qardawi is not credible... yet Bin Baaz supported your view with his fatwa to counter Qardawi.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I did he's making a fallacious correlation; it lacks an explanation on data mapping. which is what I have tried to explain to you in as laymen's term as possible.

Once again, you're wrong and in a major way. He looked at retrospective data, and discussed a correlation. It is in his interviews that he discusses the correlation in terms of a relationship. In the papers themselves, he conducts the data analysis on the sets that you attempted to question and then conceded might very well exist. So as I said, its your duty to show us where his discussion of the correlation falters.

As I have stated, until then, the only error here is ScimatriaLogicaFallacias (Scimitar saying something is wrong but being unable to prove it).

We dont need a layman's analysis. Go to the Afghan study group data and go to Pape's work and show us where an alternative explanation is feasible or where the correlation coefficient would be strenghtened in an alternative view of the data.

Until then, its just your opinion versus his fact laden opinion. I think the educated would clearly take the fact laden opinion.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Mujtahids & Method 

One has to follow someone whom the Ummah has accepted as a mujtahid imam. Few would grant this status to Shaykh Qaradawi or Nasir al-Albani.

therefore his fatwas aren't valid according to the over all Sunni Ulama, as he is not a Mujtahid.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Once again, you're wrong and in a major way. He looked at retrospective data, and discussed a correlation. It is in his interviews that he discusses the correlation in terms of a relationship. In the papers themselves, he conducts the data analysis on the sets that you attempted to question and then conceded might very well exist. So as I said, its your duty to show us where his discussion of the correlation falters.

in other words he's guessing; this would be a falter.


.[/QUOTE]

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Here is an example of one of his earlier pieces prior to the Afghan analysis in Dying to Win.

"To characterize the nature of suicide terrorism, this study identified every suicide terrorist attack from 1980 to 2001 that could be found in Lexis Nexis’s on-line database of world news media (Pape 2002).

He also provided a balanced assessment of the prior Afghan Soviet conflict:

"This survey sought to include every instance of a suicide attack in
which the attacker killed himself except those explicitly authorized

by a state and carried out by the state government apparatus (e.g.,

Iranian human wave attacks in the Iran

–Iraq war were not counted).

The survey is probably quite reliable, because a majority of the incidents
were openly claimed by the sponsoring terrorist organizations.
Even those that were not were, in nearly all cases, reported multiple
times in regional news media, even if not always in theU.S. media. To
probe for additional cases, I interviewed experts and of

ficials involved

in what some might consider con

flicts especially prone to suicide

attacks, such as Afghanistan in the 1980s, but this did not yield more
incidents. According to the CIA station chief for Pakistan from 1986
to 1988 (Bearden 2002),

“I cannot recall a single incident where an

Afghan launched himself against a Soviet target with the intention of
dying in the process. I don

’t think these things ever happened, though

some of their attacks were a little hare-brained and could have been
considered suicidal. I think it

’s important that Afghans never even

took their war outside their borders

—for example they never tried
to blow up the Soviet Embassy in Pakistan.”

http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

the data on page 6 is similar to the Afghan stats in Dying to Win in terms of presentation. He also provides an appendix at the end of the last paper.

In the Princeton rejoinder he rebuts:

"The article also made a limited claim about the likelihood

that the apparent association of occupation with
suicide terrorism represents a real effect. This finding
is based on the fact that there were 16 suicide terrorism
campaigns from 1980 to 2001. All 16 are associated with
military occupations; none with non-occupation. Compared
to chance (i.e., a coin flip between occupation
and non-occupation), this resultwould occur less than 1
in 55,000 trials, far less than the .05 level of significance

that is the standard benchmark in statistical studies."

He goes on to provide the caveats:

"Specifically, the universe that I studied made it possible

to assess whether occupation is a

necessary condition

for suicide terrorism; it appears that it is. I could
not, however, on the basis of the data in the article, have
made claims about whether occupation is a

sufficient
condition for suicide terrorism, and did not."

Therefore, he remains the authority and therefore referencable as an authority on the matter until you can debunk his work. Otherwise, we are left with nothing except the assumption that you are uncomfortable with his work because it challenges your comfort zone and beliefs, which doesnt make wrong... it just makes it uncomfortable for you.