They Hate Us For Our Freedoms

[Zinegata]

That was a joke. I made it to lighten the tone of the discussion, and to insert humour into a very unhumourous discussion that quite frankly, could use some.

Yes. And that was my way of saying you're not funny.

Unless you were honestly calling a Crissa a racist for summing up LL's post. You fucking apologize for that and i'll retract my innocent fucking joke about an adventuring party being sent into afghanistan to extract bin laden.

The word "racist" is for whoever believes that brown deserve to be shot for being brown. I'm not gonna apologize for that.

Uh. Wait, what? Let's deconstruct this a little bit.

Rejakor, here is your problem: The issue is that people were claiming that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to prevent war. In fact, the only person who's making long definitions of justice, is you.

So I'm gonna ignore your whole tangent on justice, because like your NEXT point your are pilloring me because you did not understand what we are arguing about.

Oh wait, look, you're right.

Damn right I am. Because like the "justice" issue, you started saying stupid comments without figuring out what my position actually is.

You were suckered. Because you only read the nasty said things said about me and not what I actually wrote.

You have several times explicitly stated that the only reason the Bush Administration went to war to capture Osama, and that profiteering was just something that happened on the side and had nothing to do with the greater war concerns (capturing one man).

Is that better? Does that put it more clearly? Can you understand my point, now? Do I have to put it in retard? I can do that for you, if you want.

Nope, you're still not getting it. Note I highlighted only, because this implies that I believe the only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to capture one man.

And yet what you quoted from me is:

I would think that "haven for terrorism" (a national interest issue) is a much bigger reason as to why the Americans whacked the Afghans as opposed to a proposed pipeline that doesn't yet exist.

Or

You're still not making a case that overturns the main reason for going to war - which was whacking the Taliban for harboring Osama (stupid reason or not).

I didn't say "only". I said the main reason was to whack the Taliban for harboring Osama. In fact, I stated other reasons like bombing terrorist camps which demonstate that I don't believe it's the only reason.

Hell, I also listed the five official demands of the US to the Taliban. Only one of them involved turning over Osama.

Y'see, I missed that you had built in a little escape clause for yourself there. 'MAINLY' is such a great word, isn't it? It implies 'nearly all' without ever saying so.

Right. I put "mainly" just to entrap you. Instead of the much more likely scenario - you didn't read what I actually wrote and jumped into this thread like a headless chicken.

And right... mainly implies "nearly all". When I also stated half a dozen reasons for the war... and that I even agreed that oil a reason for the war, but not the main reason.

Explain to me again why I should bother discussing anything with you? Because Rejakor, clearly, right now you're not arguing the facts. You're just upset you didn't actually read what I wrote, got embarassed by it, forced to admit you were wrong, and now you want pay back.

Actually, no, I'm through being nice. You got suckered by the other idiots here calling me a pro-Bushie. You believed them without checking the facts. You now think you've been humiliated and I intentionally led you down this path... when you could have fact-checked beforehand before I told you to do so and saved yourself the embarassment.

If anyone's being a hypocrite and a liar, it's you. Stop being a fucking headless chicken and let the adults talk.

Also, now that I noticed, stop kissing Crissa's ass.

[Zinegata]

Strangely, the US has not managed any better to capture and destroy training centers before they destroyed the civilian government (note they didn't destroy the Taliban) in Afghanistan than after.

Kaelik is basically asking leading questions. Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Kaelik?

-Crissa

I still haven't seen anything proving that the Taliban is structured the way you say... and that the "civilian government" pre-9-11 is not also the Taliban.

Which is the corner you've backed yourself into because you made and insisted that idiotic claim that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden... which I will note is currently being used as a criticism against President Obama, and unfairly at that.

Also, you're still being a bitch to Kaelik. Never mind the previous comment. You're a racist. I don't care if there's no direct proof. The way you say he's a wife beater out of the blue in a topic about the Taliban is the sort of thing only hateful, spiteful people like racists do.

[Cielingcat]

Also, you're still being a bitch to Kaelik. Never mind the previous comment. You're a racist. I don't care if there's no direct proof. The way you say he's a wife beater out of the blue in a topic about the Taliban is the sort of thing only hateful, spiteful people like racists do.

Wow you are a dishonest little fucker.

[Zinegata]

Also, you're still being a bitch to Kaelik. Never mind the previous comment. You're a racist. I don't care if there's no direct proof. The way you say he's a wife beater out of the blue in a topic about the Taliban is the sort of thing only hateful, spiteful people like racists do.

Wow you are a dishonest little fucker.

Nope. As I said, I was past caring if I was being dishonest .

But yeah, you have a point. I was being silly

Still, calling someone a wife-beater out of the blue is pretty foul in my book. Unless there's something I don't know about. Are Kaelik and Crissa married?

[Cielingcat]

Have you seriously never heard that phrase before? The whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" as an example of a leading question?

[Zinegata]

Have you seriously never heard that phrase before? The whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" as an example of a leading question?

Actually, in all honesty, no.

English is my second language, just to be clear. So I'm not familiar with all the nuances.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Have you seriously never heard that phrase before? The whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" as an example of a leading question?

Actually, in all honesty, no.

English is my second language, just to be clear. So I'm not familiar with all the nuances.

You've learned it well enough to spew forth an incredible amount of intellectually dishonest strawman bullshit in this thread while simultaneously slandering everyone that "dares" to hold an opposing viewpoint - despite the fact that those that have argued with you have had an overwhelming amount of factual evidence on their side. Good job, ESL Troll!

[Cielingcat]

Oh. Well, it's an example of a leading question, where you trap the person in such a way that either a yes or no answer is equally incriminating.

[Zinegata]

Oh. Well, it's an example of a leading question, where you trap the person in such a way that either a yes or no answer is equally incriminating.

But a leading question doesn't need to involve wife-beating does it? Or is it some kind of obscure TGDMB tradition?

[Zinegata]

You've learned it well enough to spew forth an incredible amount of intellectually dishonest strawman bullshit in this thread while simultaneously slandering everyone that "dares" to hold an opposing viewpoint - despite the fact that those that have argued with you have had an overwhelming amount of factual evidence on their side. Good job, ESL Troll!

Not really. I screwed up the definition of "Apples and Oranges" in an earlier thread. I admit my English is far from perfect.

However, given the way you argue and the way you don't do anything other than to shout outright lies and falsehoods, one doesn't really need to know English very well to know you're a hack.

And yeah, in case you didn't get it, I just insulted you. And I did it intentionally and with malice. Because I don't need to troll when I can call you a fucking idiot directly. Because I'm the stubborn sort who doesn't really give a shit how many insults you throw at me... because I can shout right back.

And in the end what you're saying are still lies, and it won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Ganbare Gincun]

However, given the way you argue and the way you don't do anything other than to shout outright lies and falsehoods, one doesn't really need to know English very well to know you're a hack.

If I could roll my eyes any harder at this statement, they'd fall out of my head!

And yeah, in case you didn't get it, I just insulted you. And I did it intentionally and with malice. Because I don't need to troll when I can call you a fucking idiot directly. Because I'm the stubborn sort who doesn't really give a shit how many insults you throw at me... because I can shout right back.

Oh no! Someone is saying mean things about me! On the internet! Maybe I should run to Dumpshock where they'll protect me from horrible people like you!

And in the end what you're saying are still lies, and it won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it.

The only one that's been lying here is you, and you've been called on it multiple times by people in this thread. You make our dearly departed tzor come off like a beacon of rational thinking and moral integrity. You can scream about me until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the facts of this - or any other - argument. This is the Gaming Den, not Fox News.

[Orca]

The "When did you stop beating your wife?" question does not originate at The Gaming Den and is widely understood to be a classic example of a leading question outside the Den. I think it came from some (obviously) biased survey which wanted to come up with a shocking result for the number of wife-beaters out there.

[Zinegata]

*points to Ganbare Gincun and laughs*

Of course it's the Internet. Because if you think you can actually pull this sort of shit in real life, people would laugh at you for claiming the things you do.

Oh, wait, you already mentioned the "conservatives" you know in real life laugh at you, don't you?

However, given that you compare me to Tzor, link me to Fox News, in spite of saying "I agree the Iraq War was in large part fought for oil" (something conservatives deny), I think you don't even know who conservatives are.

You've been living in the Internet for too long, clearly.

[Kaelik]

Oh. Well, it's an example of a leading question, where you trap the person in such a way that either a yes or no answer is equally incriminating.

But a leading question doesn't need to involve wife-beating does it? Or is it some kind of obscure TGDMB tradition?

"When did you stop beating your wife?" is the universal (english language only?) example of a leading question.

The reason Crissa is full of shit in this specific instance is not because the example involved wife beating, it is because I didn't ask any leading questions.

Do you believe that Osama was not responsible for 9/11? No, no one believes he was not responsible, not even Crissa.

But let's go to number two:

"Do you believe that the US could have captured Osama and destroyed those recruitment centers without either 1) going to war with the Taliban, or 2) The cooperation of the Taliban?"

I assume Crissa wants to answer yes to this question, or possibly the next one, not sure.

But in neither case does just saying "Yes" trap her at all, other than forcing her to actually defend a position at all.

If you think the US could have captured Osama and destroyed centers without 1 or 2, then that's just what you think.

Frankly, I think that the US could have done so, it just would have involved tactics that we have decided to never publicly use, and pissed a bunch of people off.

What I don't understand is how Crissa thinks these questions trap her if she answers in the direction she actually believes. I mean, she's usually not stupid.

At this point, I'm just putting it down to Crissa being too ideologically blinded by her hatred of all wars to even consider arguing honestly.

[Zinegata]

The "When did you stop beating your wife?" question does not originate at The Gaming Den and is widely understood to be a classic example of a leading question outside the Den. I think it came from some (obviously) biased survey which wanted to come up with a shocking result for the number of wife-beaters out there.

Ah. Thank you kindly for clarifying.

My apologies then to all parties involved for not "getting" it, and thinking it was an intentional unwarranted slur directed against Kaelik.

Kaelik->

Yep, got it now. I understand what a "leading question" means, but I wasn't aware the original example involved the wife-beating question.

Thank you kindly for clarifying.

And yeah, I'd have to say it's ideological blindness.

[Orca]

Oh, BTW my impression at the time was that the Taliban were scrambling for some kind of excuse to hand over Osama to cover their arses. They didn't get one and were probably praying that the US was bluffing and would start negotiating right up until the bombs started falling.

"Destroying the recruitment centers" couldn't be done without boots on the ground, but then the evidence is that Al Qaeda is not having difficulty recruiting since US troops arrived either. So, destroying the recruitment centers gained the US time at best, or was counterproductive at worst. And the worst seems more likely.

No idea what Crissa's answer would be to that, but that's mine.

[Crissa]

Well, that explains alot.

Try to be a bit less acidic, Zinegata, and I'll look for more links for you. Since you're apparently pushing the argument to learn things. People around here can tell you I've done the same thing.

You'd get better answers around here saying, 'teach me about x' because we actually like doing that sorta thing.

-Crissa

I still haven't seen anything proving that the Taliban is structured the way you say... and that the "civilian government" pre-9-11 is not also the Taliban.

Me neither. I've really looked, and can't find anything good outside of pay walls. It's just not apparently an interesting subject - being both history of a non-exiting government and a very small one - so you will not find it in in wikis.

You'll just have to trust someone who has been an avid reader for longer than you've been alive, and reading blogs since before you were in high school. I'm sorry, I wish I could point to something on this fact!

It's very common for [citation needed] to go unfilled, even when something is true.

[mean_liar]

So the question is: Is there a "real" RoE where it says shoot first and we'll back you up regardless?

Because letting the same pilots do a Hellfire strike an hour after their superiors knew they'd actually killed/wounded some civilians sounds pretty lax on their part of ther superiors - which jives with the "We'll back you up regardless" allegations coming from solders.

It actually does say that. Positive ID only requires that you can spot a target within 75m with HUMINT or visual identification. They (incorrectly) spotted a rifle and RPG in a "Troops in Contact" scenario. They need commander authorization to fire if there are civilians in the area, which they got.

[Crissa]

So the question is: Is there a "real" RoE where it says shoot first and we'll back you up regardless?

Because letting the same pilots do a Hellfire strike an hour after their superiors knew they'd actually killed/wounded some civilians sounds pretty lax on their part of ther superiors - which jives with the "We'll back you up regardless" allegations coming from solders.

It actually does say that. Positive ID only requires that you can spot a target within 75m with HUMINT or visual identification. They (incorrectly) spotted a rifle and RPG in a "Troops in Contact" scenario. They need commander authorization to fire if there are civilians in the area, which they got.

Which is why I'm pissed the command chain is busy covering things up instead of admitting they fucked up.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

Really, this is all about PR and public perception of the war and what war actually is. The modern military has gotten so good at mitigating battlefield casualties that when people hear 3000 dead they don't realize that's only one faction in the effort and there's a massive swath of dead civilians that don't really exist.

The civilian casualty figures are trotted out every once in a while but they're just figures - there's not a lot of reportage about what those figures actually mean. Honestly though I don't think it would matter. My brother is of the opinion that America has fonts of sympathy but little capacity for empathy and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[Zinegata]

So the question is: Is there a "real" RoE where it says shoot first and we'll back you up regardless?

Because letting the same pilots do a Hellfire strike an hour after their superiors knew they'd actually killed/wounded some civilians sounds pretty lax on their part of ther superiors - which jives with the "We'll back you up regardless" allegations coming from solders.

It actually does say that. Positive ID only requires that you can spot a target within 75m with HUMINT or visual identification. They (incorrectly) spotted a rifle and RPG in a "Troops in Contact" scenario. They need commander authorization to fire if there are civilians in the area, which they got.

Uh, mean_liar, I'm not questioning the mis-ID. If you scroll up high enough you'll see me saying that the pilots - if they had mis-ID'd the camera as an RPG that was aimed at a Humvee down the street - were technically following the written RoE.

I'm questioning why they sent the same guys out less than an hour later to do a Hellfire strike... when their superiors already knew they fucked up. Shouldn't they have said "Wait, these guys mis-ID'd one set of guys already. Maybe we should send another team?"

Becase as it stands the attitude seems to be "Meh. We'll back you up. Keep shooting." Which is kinda... not in keeping with "minimizing civilian casualties".

Yeah, th US military doesn't do shit like intentionally blow up civilians to scare them into submission, and the insurgents don't even give a fuck about the civilians in most occassions, but it's still a pretty questionable trend.

[Zinegata]

Well, that explains alot.

Try to be a bit less acidic, Zinegata, and I'll look for more links for you. Since you're apparently pushing the argument to learn things. People around here can tell you I've done the same thing.

You'd get better answers around here saying, 'teach me about x' because we actually like doing that sorta thing.

-Crissa

I still haven't seen anything proving that the Taliban is structured the way you say... and that the "civilian government" pre-9-11 is not also the Taliban.

Me neither. I've really looked, and can't find anything good outside of pay walls. It's just not apparently an interesting subject - being both history of a non-exiting government and a very small one - so you will not find it in in wikis.

You'll just have to trust someone who has been an avid reader for longer than you've been alive, and reading blogs since before you were in high school. I'm sorry, I wish I could point to something on this fact!

It's very common for [citation needed] to go unfilled, even when something is true.

While I appreciate your reply I would have to kindly decline your offer for more information.

I argue to clarify what's correct and not correct. This is why I cited the "other side" of the story very early on. Because I believe the guncam video alone does not tell the whole story. It does not show what the pilots saw via eyeball. It does not take into account there were battles raging al day. It does not say anything about the Hellfire strike an hour later.

Learning stuff along the way is an added bonus, but it's not the main reason to argue.

However, based on this thread you often cite unsubstantiated facts (blogs are not the most reliable source, and reading more does not make you more knowledgeable if the source material is wrong). And unfortunately often color them with additional commentary whose only purpose seems to be to push your own personal political views on the matter.

It really doesn't do anything except raise unrelated points of contetion, and you getting upset when I don't accept your assurances to simply trust you, and me getting upset because you keep repeating unsubstantiated facts.

Moreover, all my questions have so far been answered by other individuals, who did not have to add color commentary and answered in a straightforward manner. Links were also often provided.

So again, while I thank you for taking the time to offer for more information, I would have to kindly decline. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe, but I am likewise entitled to not believe you, especially when you can't provide a source.

Peace.

[Crissa]

Well, by reading more blogs, you can see who has an hasn't substantiated their stories.

Experience does count, alas.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

I'm questioning why they sent the same guys out less than an hour later to do a Hellfire strike... when their superiors already knew they fucked up. Shouldn't they have said "Wait, these guys mis-ID'd one set of guys already. Maybe we should send another team?"

Becase as it stands the attitude seems to be "Meh. We'll back you up. Keep shooting." Which is kinda... not in keeping with "minimizing civilian casualties".

The answer to that would involve how many gunship crews they had for that rotation. For example, they definitely weren't going to bench them if that's who they had available in the area to provide CAS and they had a team in need.

They don't want civilian casualties but they're not exactly going to grind to a halt while everything gets worked out, either. They're the US military, not a police force, and these are the sorts of things that happen when you get a war machine to enforce a peace. You seem to be expecting some kind of Internal Affairs to come swooping in: "YOU'RE OFF THE CASE, LIEUTENANT!", and that's not how things operate in a war zone. If the pilots were rattled or impaired you'd worry and perhaps pull them, but just because they made a bad call is no reason to forego a very valuable asset and put more soldiers in danger.

[Zinegata]

The answer to that would involve how many gunship crews they had for that rotation. For example, they definitely weren't going to bench them if that's who they had available in the area to provide CAS and they had a team in need.

They don't want civilian casualties but they're not exactly going to grind to a halt while everything gets worked out, either. They're the US military, not a police force, and these are the sorts of things that happen when you get a war machine to enforce a peace. You seem to be expecting some kind of Internal Affairs to come swooping in: "YOU'RE OFF THE CASE, LIEUTENANT!", and that's not how things operate in a war zone. If the pilots were rattled or impaired you'd worry and perhaps pull them, but just because they made a bad call is no reason to forego a very valuable asset and put more soldiers in danger.

In short, you could also attribute it to overwork or lack of enough boots/air crews on the ground.