Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[Afghanistan2010]

i suppose you have to be super lazy. i m sure there is a way to placing a bomb somewhere and then blowing it from a distance.

Yes but these mines can't walk to hit the initial target (hadaf).The risk with these so called road side bomb is high in populated areas to hit civilians or miss the target.

In areas such as a base or heavy compound which the americans and its terrorist allies intentionally place it in populated areas, the islamic resistance has not the might to target them with mines (except for the robotic mines which are being used by the iraqi resistance),so the insurgency rely on these 4 men or 10 men mission which dont care about their fate and attack the enemy.



Robotic mines used in Iraq

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...ts-got-robots/

[ScimitarXEdge]

No counter data is needed ...after watching the video; he's doing precisely what he had done in the paper version of the same argument.

Except here he's also "leading the audience" and making faulty correlations.

For Example; while he admits that over 90% of suicide bombers are Afghan Nationals, he also also 5% are PAKISTANI Nationals and another 5% are From places of ALQaeda spheres of influence OUTSIDE of the region of conflict (the Middle East).

He very casually switches gears and overlooks what he himself just identified, that there in fact is a rather unusually high significance of external involvement in something he considers a "local national resistance". What are 10 + % of foreign nationals doing in a so called "national resistance". Now I'm not saying that the presence of foreign nationals automatically precludes the status of national resistance. It however begs the question if such a contingency is evidence of a national resistance.

What it opens doors for, and this is using the SAME data that Pape is using is that the Non-regional fighters SUICIDE Bombing in Afghanistan, also works in tandem with these foreign militants becoming more involved in Afghanistan's conflict. That in fact the Independent Variable is not the increase of NATO troops , but the increase of Wahhabi Militants and ISI trained individuals promoting their ideology, using mislead individuals as Canon Fodder, but mainly Afghans.

This is also why Pape's study has many holes in it; because it's not air tight, it leaves these doors wide open....How can that be evidence?

In short the data analysis that Pape presents itself is flawed.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No counter data is needed ...after watching the video; he's doing precisely what he had done in the paper version of the same argument.

Except here he's also "leading the audience" and making faulty correlations.

For Example; while he admits that over 90% of suicide bombers are Afghan Nationals, he also also 5% are PAKISTANI Nationals and another 5% are From places of ALQaeda spheres of influence OUTSIDE of the region of conflict (the Middle East).

He very casually switches gears and overlooks what he himself just identified, that there in fact is a rather unusually high significance of external involvement in something he considers a "local national resistance". What are 10 + % of foreign nationals doing in a so called "national resistance". Now I'm not saying that the presence of foreign nationals automatically precludes the status of national resistance. It however begs the question if such a contingency is evidence of a national resistance.

What it opens doors for, and this is using the SAME data that Pape is using is that the Non-regional fighters SUICIDE Bombing in Afghanistan, also works in tandem with these foreign militants becoming more involved in Afghanistan's conflict. That in fact the Independent Variable is not the increase of NATO troops , but the increase of Wahhabi Militants and ISI trained individuals promoting their ideology, using mislead individuals as Canon Fodder, but mainly Afghans.

This is also why Pape's study has many holes in it; because it's not air tight, it leaves these doors wide open....How can that be evidence?

In short the data analysis that Pape presents itself is flawed.

Illogica ScimitarioXLogicaVacuumo (ISV): The inversion and absence of logic in an attempt to redeem an illogical conclusion.

Sorry my friend, you just committed an ISV logic error. You are now being deceptive by glossing over the fact that when you go to the data base and when you also list the names and you the numbers, the 5% that are Pakistani nationals are FATA Pashtuns. So its Wazirs and other folks who see no durand line! loooool. Nice try though, but that was a very unacademic move in an attempt to salvage a dead theory.

Lol, also the number of foreign fighters per even NATO's estimation (ie. wahabites and AQ) running around in Afghanistan was low. That in fact was what drove the last set of debates prior to OBLs death in regard to why the Americans are even still in Afghanistan if the premise was to get AQ:

"The CIA says only 50–100 are left in Afghanistan, which is a few more than the German police say are currently in Hamburg, let alone the 1,000–2,000 the State Department says are present in Iraq. Our efforts against Al Qaeda are not just ineffective; they don’t make sense. Worse, young Americans are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, while their families back home are being told their sacrifices are making us safer."

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

So now your attempt is to say that these guys are the "independent variable?" Laughable and just more ISV logic. Thats basically like saying we Pashtuns are so incredibly dumb that 50 Arab guys are going to drive our nationalist freedom sentiments. Its an insult to both Arabs and Pashtuns and basically insinuating that Toramana is right with little evidence.

Oh and the confounder? Listen to his discussion of the data in the Pashtun belt on the other side of the durand line. The discussion he has of suicide bombing in FATA and the documented death in the data base of countless Pakistani soldiers with Musharraf's concurrent surge into FATA basically creates an issue for your ISI drive theory... (i.e. it just crucified it). Now to preempt you in case you try and committ more ISV logic error: If you present the utterly absurd theory that these are patsy Pashtun soldiers getting killed in FATA and the ISI is willing to expend Pashtuns in the killing of other Pashtuns, you'll have to provide the data for that assertion (which you wont - you'll just state it without basis). That would also not be at all an undoing of his more logical conclusion in regard to: foreign troops into Pashtun areas = commensurate rise in assymetric tactics to neutralize a superiorly armed aggressive force. You basically would still have to address why your very illogical conclusion would trump his lol.

You've inadequately addressed his data, evidence, and arguments (e.g. the commensurate rise WITH ISAF introduction per the map he showed of troop movements) and its time to concede SXE, you've lost this round.

Its over my friend, concede.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And yes, counter data needed alongside your analysis to address ^ as otherwise, as we showed definitively, it allows you to gloss over important details (e.g. 5% were FATA Pashtuns etc). Until then, the responses are just conspiracy theories ala Zaid Hamid. I would hope you do not devolve into an inverted Zaid Hamid as you have much more potential for good than he does.

[ScimitarXEdge]

so if I'm committing a logical error then so is Pape; since I'm drawing from Pape's data, I'm not inadequately addressing his data, I'm stressing his data has gaps in it and that most of his statements are to mold the readers minds on what he thinks the reader should get from the data.

He's doing what's called "poisoning the well"


you're in essence debunking Pape. good show LOL

[ScimitarXEdge]

And yes, counter data needed alongside your analysis to address ^ as otherwise, as we showed definitively, it allows you to gloss over important details (e.g. 5% were FATA Pashtuns etc). Until then, the responses are just conspiracy theories ala Zaid Hamid. I would hope you do not devolve into an inverted Zaid Hamid as you have much more potential for good than he does.

Not at all, what's needed is whatever is sufficient; if I can show Pape's data is too abstract in itself and makes correlational fallacies; this is sufficient in showing the argument is faulty. and I have done that. since he doesn't demonstrate the proper causational link

he only says A happened ..and C happened, therefore A caused C.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

so if I'm committing a logical error then so is Pape; since I'm drawing from Pape's data, I'm not inadequately addressing his data, I'm stressing his data has gaps in it and that most of his statements are to mold the readers minds on what he thinks the reader should get from the data.

He's doing what's called "poisoning the well"


you're in essence debunking Pape. good show LOL

looooool, you're stressing the data has gaps in it by not examining the data and simply stating a foregone conclusion... in essence debunking yourself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Not at all, what's needed is whatever is sufficient; if I can show Pape's data is too abstract in itself and makes correlational fallacies; this is sufficient in showing the argument is faulty. and I have done that. since he doesn't demonstrate the proper causational link

he only says A happened ..and C happened, therefore A caused C.

Looooool, yeah so today on PF, breaking news, SXE debunked the concept of correlation coefficients and p values (basically determining that all modern statistics dont really mean what they mean). He's talking to navy generals in the video SXE, you're being utterly absurd in the attempt to hoist a losing argument requesting that he break out a stats book and explain what a p value and obligate himself to utilize language that endorses your debunked null hypothesis.

Sorry my friend, you've lost today.

[ScimitarXEdge]

looooool, you're stressing the data has gaps in it by not examining the data and simply stating a foregone conclusion... in essence debunking yourself.

No I examined the data, you presented it to me, he presents it in the videos ......it has gaps ....he makes faulty correlations and making a conclusion which isn't rigorously demonstrated by the data.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Looooool, yeah so today on PF, breaking news, SXE debunked the concept of correlation coefficients and p values (basically determining that all modern statistics dont really mean what they mean). He's talking to navy generals in the video SXE, you're being utterly absurd in the attempt to hoist a losing argument requesting that he break out a stats book and explain what a p value and obligate himself to utilize language endorses your debunked null hypothesis.

Sorry my friend, you've lost today.

But that's not what he does, he's showing internal consistency with the data he chose, but he doesn't show the relational mapping of the data sets that this event caused the other events. He's just saying this happened ...and after this happened so the first caused the later ....so by internal consistency, he's showing the rises, but not showing how they're the exclusive and or primary factors; for this he'd need to do a contingency mapping. Where he draws on suicide bombs specifically in response to a NATO attack, which resulted from troop surge. He doesn't do that anywhere in any of his data sets.


remember what I was mentioning about data mapping?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No I examined the data, you presented it to me, he presents it in the videos ......it has gaps ....he makes faulty correlations and making a conclusion which isn't rigorously demonstrated by the data.

No, you imposed a conclusion that his data doesnt support and then ignored the remainder of his data (i.e. FATA bombs, ethnicity of the Pak bombers etc). Moreover, your contentions warrant the Princeton group style approach. Had they simply released a statement saying: "yeaaaaah we're gonna just say we think Pape is bunk.. but we are gonna just say that we saw the data and leave it at that"... no one would ever take them seriously again.

We expect to see your rejoinder to Pape based on the data soon... otherwise, you're routed. Time to accept the legitimacy of those innocent Afghans, the bare foot, the weak and down trodden, who have nothing to fight with except their own bodies as opposed to labeling them as agents of the ISI and idiotic pigeon stools of the Pakistanis. As Matt Hoh notes, they are the Pashtuns.

[ScimitarXEdge]

If anything he's imposing what he wants the data to mean

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But that's not what he does, he's showing internal consistency with the data he chose, but he doesn't show the relational mapping of the data sets that this event caused the other events. He's just saying this happened ...and after this happened so the first caused the later ....so by internal consistency, he's showing the rises, but not showing how they're the exclusive and or primary factors; for this he'd need to do a contingency mapping. Where he draws on suicide bombs specifically in response to a NATO attack, which resulted from troop surge. He doesn't do that anywhere in any of his data sets.


remember what I was mentioning about data mapping?

Wrong. He shows the clear relationship on both sides of the border between troop incursions and commensurate suicide bombing done by predominantly ethnic Pashtuns. All the terminology in the world hasnt allowed you to debunk it. Once again, you are welcomed to data map and reconfirm his findings. Also, your comparing apples and oranges, an attack and presence do not necessarily mean the same thing.

Sorry my friend, you're digging yourself a deeper hole just to preserve ego. You came close above with your commentary that it might signal legitimate national resistance, but then you went back into committing IllogicalScimitarioExVacuo

[ScimitarXEdge]

Barakzai just as an aside, not directly related to the subject of Pape's data


do you believe that suicide bombing in densely civilian populated areas which guarantees the deaths of civilians as a result; to be a legitimate tactic to use when fighting an occupier?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

If anything he's imposing what he wants the data to mean

Wrong, thats what you just did in response to buttress a convoluted conspiracy theory wherein Pashtuns are considered low IQ automatons. In an impressive manner he collected the universal data set (quiet an accomplishment I might add), crunched the numbers, saw the 2005-06 rise, and clearly acquired NATOs own ISAF movement maps and Pakistani surge data and explained a simple phenomena: Pashtuns dont like occupation by ferangyaan... they are fighting a vastly superior force... and are using this technique as a responsive measure. This is buttressed by the Lee Enfield surplus and the sniper video I previously posted in terms of lack of resources. Therefore, the brave Pashtuns have decided that this is their last resort and mounting a resistance.

His Iraq data absolutely destroys your theory. You should watch the full video. He comes on the verge of dipping that p value to .000001 looool.