maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 32323
Reputation points: 20000
My point was that the sophistication of ISIS attacks is falling. A big, shocking, attack, such as the Paris theater attack is a recruiting bonanza. It's like jihadi porn for jihadi wannabes. A loser with a unibrow cowering in front of a Polish bartender with a narwhal tusk is NOT jihadi porn.

By ra way, the London attacker served less than half of his 16 year sentence as the "public safety" charges were taken off. In retrospect, this was a bad idea.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:22 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12464
Reputation points: 17177
As far as kill ratios go ... using data from wiki-pee as an example ... for the wah in afghanistan ...

It depends on who you count ...

The afghans lost 62,000 ... the taliban lost 62,500 (averaging the range given of 60,000 to 65,000) ... so that about even ... Al Kadah 2,000 ... ISIL-KP 2,400

The "coalition" (the furriners fighting with the afghans) lost 3,561 (United States: 2,419, United Kingdom: 456, Canada: 159, France: 89, Germany: 57, Italy: 5 ... etc)

The "contractors" (not totally sure who all is included) lost 3,937 ....

The civilians lost 38,480 ...

Since there is no breakdown of who killed the civilians or what side they were rootin' for ... I'll leave them out.

So 66,900 for the talibs and their friends ... and the afghans and their friends lost 69,498 ... and given the margin of error for these estimates ... I'd call that about even.

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 32323
Reputation points: 20000
I would be willing to call the Taliban fight more of a civil war where one side are radical islamists. They have been murdering each other for centuries. Tadjik v Pashto, Clan A vs Clan B. etc etc. There has been warfare with modern weapons there since the Soviet invasion.

We wouldn't even be there had they not harbored UBL, the cocksuckers. Therefore, I say you don't count Afghan civilian or government casualties. ;)

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:05 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12464
Reputation points: 17177
I agree about the civil war part ... but then that begs the question about why we are still there ?? Last I heard UBL was dead and eaten by the fishies ?

Isn't there some old wise man saying about "don't get into the middle of somebody else's civil wah" ???

==
And before we got "truly engaged" over there ... the taliban said they would turn over ubl to a 3rd party nation ... they just never did it ... had they just done it ... I don't think we would be there ... even with jorge the second in charge ... of course we could've just nuked the 2 hoo lee mosques and kandahar (3 edifae in exchange for the 3 edifae the got of ours) ... and sent the cia and delta farce after ubl ... that's what I wuddah done ... easier, faster, cheaper and lot less people die ... but nah ... we went for booties on the ground ... and killed a bunch of folks ... and probably afghanistan as a whole is madder at us now than they've ever been ... and I don't blame them.

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:15 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15755
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18812
jwilkerson wrote:
As far as kill ratios go ... using data from wiki-pee as an example ... for the wah in afghanistan ...

It depends on who you count ...

The afghans lost 62,000 ... the taliban lost 62,500 (averaging the range given of 60,000 to 65,000) ... so that about even ... Al Kadah 2,000 ... ISIL-KP 2,400

The "coalition" (the furriners fighting with the afghans) lost 3,561 (United States: 2,419, United Kingdom: 456, Canada: 159, France: 89, Germany: 57, Italy: 5 ... etc)

The "contractors" (not totally sure who all is included) lost 3,937 ....

The civilians lost 38,480 ...

Since there is no breakdown of who killed the civilians or what side they were rootin' for ... I'll leave them out.

So 66,900 for the talibs and their friends ... and the afghans and their friends lost 69,498 ... and given the margin of error for these estimates ... I'd call that about even.


I'd count that as ~7,498 Westerners and ~66,900 Islamic Supremacists. So ~8:1 in that theater, based on those numbers. I'd just leave the Afghan military and civilian losses out, though I think it would be reasonable to count them AGAINST Islamic Supremacist score in some way.

Point is: assuming a body count measure of relative victory, 62,000 Afghan Coalition losses and Afghan civilian 38,840 losses works in "our" favor. Not to say I'm discounting the tragedy of those lost human lives, nor the fact that they died either as victims of, or fighting against Islamic Supremacism. I'm simply proposing that, in an analysis of the strategic victory progress, they cannot be counted AGAINST the Free World Power 'score.' Why would they!? None of the social or political factors which can shape the policy or actions of the Free World Power nations is going to be the least bit impacted by those sacrifices.

Moreover, my point is: the social and political factors which shape _Afghan_ public opinion and individual warlord/politician position WILL be shaped by those losses, and they are not likely to be shaped in favor of Islamic Supremacism. To put it simply: with that many Afghan cops, soldiers and civilians who have fallen victim to Islamic Supremacists there are likely to be 5 times that many Afghans who are thirsting for revenge and victory. Even if they are not exactly in favor of "The Coalition" the fact that they are in favor of meting out justice to whatever label the Islamic Supremacists are going by this month counts toward strategic victory FOR (not against) The Free World Powers side of the struggle.

Restricting analysis to "body count" factors only, there are at least two social processes which can lead to game over in warfare: (a) depletion of personnel to a point where effective fighting is diminished, either to a point of collapse or at least of progressive decline; (b) impacts on will to fight. In order for the casualties in this war to achieve (a) they would have to be into the millions, not the tens of thousands. This is a "low-intensity" war, using, for example, WWI as an example of a "high-intensity" war. Most all the available evidence about (b) going back as far as recorded history suggests that, achieving a body count impact on "will to fight" is a very tricky business. In some cases (e.g., a Bronze Age context and razing an entire city state to set an example) large scale slaughter CAN be seen to have achieved an impact on "will to fight." But based on more modern examples (The Wars of Religion; Napoloeon's struggles in Spain; The American Civil War; WWI; WWII; Vietnam; etc.) simply slaughtering a large number of people generally does NOT lead to a more pacified and subservient enemy population, unless and until that slaughter reaches levels that are approaching or exceeding (a)! :)

That means that this ~25 year long World War on Terror is primarily about "will to fight" and that is shaped by many other factors besides casualty count too. Restricting our analysis to strictly the body count aspect, even a 1:1 is not working in the favor of the Islamic Supremacists, and certainly an 8:1 is not. In order for them to truly diminish the FWP "will to fight," I think they'd need to achieve a rapid series of very high casualty attacks against which FWP resistance was obviously completely ineffectual (dirty bombs or suitcase nukes detonated in 8 or 12 "Western cities" all in the same day? so perhaps 15 million dead, 30 million wounded, and 50 million displaced?). Even that would seemingly only steel FWP resolve to retaliate. I don't think they actually CAN win; they can keep fighting and being a pain in the ass for a long time, because "our" will "to WIN" is insuficient, but that is not the same thing as them "winning."

This isn't our grandfathers' style of warfare! :P

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:26 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 36868
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Quote:

I'd count that as ~7,498 Westerners and ~66,900 Islamic Supremacists. So ~8:1 in that theater, based on those numbers. I'd just leave the Afghan military and civilian losses out, though I think it would be reasonable to count them AGAINST Islamic Supremacist score in some way.

Point is: assuming a body count measure of relative victory, 62,000 Afghan Coalition losses and Afghan civilian 38,840 losses works in "our" favor.



Basing results and the outcome of a conflict on “body counts” alone does not work.
Were that the case, then the United States won the Vietnam War.
But it didn’t win, did it?

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:34 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15755
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18812
chijohnaok wrote:
Quote:

I'd count that as ~7,498 Westerners and ~66,900 Islamic Supremacists. So ~8:1 in that theater, based on those numbers. I'd just leave the Afghan military and civilian losses out, though I think it would be reasonable to count them AGAINST Islamic Supremacist score in some way.

Point is: assuming a body count measure of relative victory, 62,000 Afghan Coalition losses and Afghan civilian 38,840 losses works in "our" favor.



Basing results and the outcome of a conflict on “body counts” alone does not work.
Were that the case, then the United States won the Vietnam War.
But it didn’t win, did it?


Which is another good point.
With the level of Communist-provoked "Anti-War" agitation in the U.S. and the degree of media coverage and commentary on that war, the end result would likely have been the same even if U.S. casualties had only totaled 582 instead of 58,220 and even if Commie casualties had been 9,507,650 instead of 950,765.
What mattered most for the U.S. loss in the Vietnam war was that we were too "AMERICAN" about how we tolerated obviously treasonous and borderline treasonous commentary and failed to define the conflict as what those promulgating it obviously considered it to be: a critical point of resistance against the spread of communism.
Our greatest strengths are our tolerance of diversity, our openness to dialogue, our tireless defense of individual liberty and freedom of speech, our willingness to criticize ourselves and our way of life and to seriously ponder how we might 'do better.'
These are also our greatest weaknesses in struggles against external powers. They have been since the early 1800s! With the one exception of the Mexican War where a national sentiment of jingoistic kick ass seems to have held sway at least temporarily.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12464
Reputation points: 17177
Quote:
... they can keep fighting and being a pain in the ass for a long time, because "our" will "to WIN" is insuficient, but that is not the same thing as them "winning." ...


Well if NVN "won" the VN war, this ^^ is exactly how they won ... by fighting until we left.

I would argue that militarily they were loosing ... and never winning ... until we left. But after we left ... then they were able to "win".

So whether they "won" or not depends on the time frame. They never won, on the battle field, while we were on the battle field. But after we left the battlefield ... they "won" because they were still there :D

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15755
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18812
jwilkerson wrote:
Quote:
... they can keep fighting and being a pain in the ass for a long time, because "our" will "to WIN" is insuficient, but that is not the same thing as them "winning." ...


Well if NVN "won" the VN war, this ^^ is exactly how they won ... by fighting until we left.

I would argue that militarily they were loosing ... and never winning ... until we left. But after we left ... then they were able to "win".

So whether they "won" or not depends on the time frame. They never won, on the battle field, while we were on the battle field. But after we left the battlefield ... they "won" because they were still there :D


All true. But in this case, even if we "leave" the Middle East, they are going to continue to be a pain in the ass. This is because this war is a result of an Islamic motive to establish supremacy. Not a Vietnamese desire to establish national sovereignty by playing off the Great Powers (specifically the Commie Powers vs the Free World Powers) against one another.

This is to say: victory for the Islamic Supremacists looks like Islam reigning supreme pretty much all over Earth. Victory for "us" is, preventing them from winning long enough that they give up and "leave," i.e., become broken into increasingly ineffective small subdivisions and undergo various reforms which gradually take more and more supremacy out of Islamic Supremacism. In 500 years (at most) Islam will only be as loathsome as Catholicism is today--it is INEVITABLE. That is how long the Reformation took (roughly) under the context of pre-modernity. Under the context of post-modernity, the rate at which Islam inevitably reforms into a neutered, pathetic, ineffectual, largely self-loathing, version of itself may well be 10 times as rapid.

"Winning" for us is--in this context--more like the conditions for "winning" for the Viet Commies! :P

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: London Bridge Incident
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:35 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12464
Reputation points: 17177
Quote:
... All true. But in this case, even if we "leave" the Middle East, they are going to continue to be a pain in the ass. This is because this war is a result of an Islamic motive to establish supremacy. Not a Vietnamese desire to establish national sovereignty by playing off the Great Powers (specifically the Commie Powers vs the Free World Powers) against one another.

This is to say: victory for the Islamic Supremacists looks like Islam reigning supreme pretty much all over Earth. Victory for "us" is, preventing them from winning long enough that they give up and "leave," i.e., become broken into increasingly ineffective small subdivisions and undergo various reforms which gradually take more and more supremacy out of Islamic Supremacism. In 500 years (at most) Islam will only be as loathsome as Catholicism is today--it is INEVITABLE. That is how long the Reformation took (roughly) under the context of pre-modernity. Under the context of post-modernity, the rate at which Islam inevitably reforms into a neutered, pathetic, ineffectual, largely self-loathing, version of itself may well be 10 times as rapid ...


I agree with more than half of this ...

But I would argue the apparent moozlim desire for world supremacy is actually just a symptom of the reformation ... a huge culture clash has happened when the 6th century moozlims finally became aware of the outside world ... and some of their leaders are In denial" ... they want the world to be the way it used to be ... and well that just ain't gonna happen ... they cannot kill all the non-moozlims ... not even half of them ... at some point ... the non-moozlims would actually start fighting back ... and the world will change and is already changing the mozzlims ... yes there are lots of them ... and they make lots more of them every day ... but the internet will change them even faster.

"Fighting" the moozlims at the strategic level would actually involve making sure their women become doctors and lawyers and sh^t ... but we have to be careful ... and not make too many of them senators and sh^T !!! :D
Not too fast anyway.

I skimmed thru the history of the counter-reformation today ... and it was pretty danged lame compared to what the moozlims are trying to do ... but the cathaholics did kill a lot of folks ... burned 'em and such ... and forced relocations ... etc. so maybe its really the same effect, though the means were different.

As to time frame ... who knows ... I witnessed the peak of the USA in my lifetime ... I knew a decline would come ... and I can't believe how fast its happened ...

But the hard core wattanabi fanatic type leaders are stuck in the SIXTH century ... and this is the 21st ... and I don't think the cathaholic leaders were that far behind ... maybe 1-2 centuries but not ... 15 centuries !! :D

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group