MedVision ad

Terror in London: Soldier beheaded on street (1 Viewer)

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Demonstrably false. We had a clear opportunity to win both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We began drawing down too early, the Taliban, AQI and other insurgents regrouped, and the troops surges were too late.
Really? clear opportunity? You mean like no exit strategy and completely missing the point of conducting a counter-insurgency strategy. Most of the GWOT was focused on finding and killing terror leaders instead of winning hearts and minds. The surge was highly unpopular politically, people called general petreaus as general "betrayus." All the US politicians care about is a quick and easy fix, hence drone strikes. You know how the drone strikes are having a counter-intuitive effect?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687



Pakistanis favoured romney over obama. It has a lot to do with the drone strikes and Obama killing four American citizens without judicial review is very very dangerous.
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
You should look up how malaysia deals with muslim extremists and it has worked extremely well. A lot of "insurgents" are just frustrated youth from extremely poor backgrounds with nothing to lose. No different from youth joining gangs, a lot of it has to do with lack of economic opportunity. It's not a simple "good vs bad," the results of "treating insurgents" harshly hasn't really worked out has it? there's such a huge international against extrajudicial killings and imprisonment aka gitmo.

I'm highly skeptical about the number of FATA residents who want the taliban out. If they wanted the taliban out, the locals would have already driven them away in the first place. It's a very very tricky issue dealing with tribal areas, lot's of mixed loyalties.
poverty doesn't cause terrorism. this isn't to say there isn't an economics of terrorism, but there is no monocausal explanation, particularly not poverty.

also, brutality is an effective way of dealing with insurgencies. deal with it. most of the policies malaysia has adopted in regards to malaysian terrorism aren't available to western countries for reasons that are patently obvious.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,897
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
But I thought all those muslims in western countries are trying to destroy our secular way of life! all those muslim riots and rape in western countries!
What part of "And THEN, they want to change those countries to be like...the country they from where they were unhappy!" do you not fucking understand you moron?
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
poverty doesn't cause terrorism. this isn't to say there isn't an economics of terrorism, but there is no monocausal explanation, particularly not poverty.

also, brutality is an effective way of dealing with insurgencies. deal with it. most of the policies malaysia has adopted in regards to malaysian terrorism aren't available to western countries for reasons that are patently obvious.
No brutality is not an effective way. Worked well in vietnam right? lets start napalming every enemy village. See how quick the local population turn against you. Every single counter-insurgency expert knows this. Why do you think there has been calls for greater restraints on western soldiers? Why do you think Aussie troops don't shoot at everything that moves? There's a strategic reason for that. I'm not saying poverty causes terrorism. But who is more likely going to be recruited? Some saudi prince living a baller lifestyle with swag or some kid who grew up extremely poor with no way out, until mr al qaeda pays him 3 times the annual salary in a month. Taliban boys get paid 500 bucks a month to shoot at american soldiers, compared to making almost 0 because we fucked with their livelihoods by destroying poppy fields.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You should look up how malaysia deals with muslim extremists and it has worked extremely well. A lot of "insurgents" are just frustrated youth from extremely poor backgrounds with nothing to lose. No different from youth joining gangs, a lot of it has to do with lack of economic opportunity. It's not a simple "good vs bad," the results of "treating insurgents" harshly hasn't really worked out has it? there's such a huge international against extrajudicial killings and imprisonment aka gitmo.

I'm highly skeptical about the number of FATA residents who want the taliban out. If they wanted the taliban out, the locals would have already driven them away in the first place. It's a very very tricky issue dealing with tribal areas, lot's of mixed loyalties.
That's true, but the radical clerics spearheading the movement are not, and they are the ones being targeted.

Furthermore, the situation in Malaysia is quite different. The reason violent extremism isn't really coming out of there to the same extent it is elsewhere is primarily because Malaysians don't really have any political incentive to attack the West. The US hasn't really attacked Malaysia nor has their foreign policy really done anything with Malaysia. As such, disaffected youth are much easier to dissuade from extremism because it's harder for a cleric to give them a reason to turn to violence. Youth in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. turn to violent extremism more readily due to proximity to the "frontlines" (so to speak) as well as other political motivations that clerics can appeal to in efforts to brainwash them.

And no, the locals wouldn't have driven them away already lol, the Pakistani military is quite strong and if they are incapable of driving out the Taliban, do you think a bunch of tribesmen will? Particularly when many people in positions of power in these tribes are on the side of the taliban?
 
Last edited:

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Really? clear opportunity? You mean like no exit strategy and completely missing the point of conducting a counter-insurgency strategy. Most of the GWOT was focused on finding and killing terror leaders instead of winning hearts and minds. The surge was highly unpopular politically, people called general petreaus as general "betrayus." All the US politicians care about is a quick and easy fix, hence drone strikes. You know how the drone strikes are having a counter-intuitive effect?
i never said the war effort wasn't sabotaged by politicking, backflippping chickenhawks. if we committed to the war, we could have won it. this directly contravenes your statement that

There's just a huge disconnect in the way we fight a non-conventional war and the reason why is that the US and Allies have been building the best conventional military, but operating in a non-conventional environment.
the conventional military is more than capable of instituting sustainable regime change in iraq and afghanistan. the 'non-conventional environment' is no obstacle.

Pakistanis favoured romney over obama. It has a lot to do with the drone strikes and Obama killing four American citizens without judicial review is very very dangerous.
i didn't say that pakistanis weren't stupid. maybe we should ask them what they think of julia gillard too?
 
Last edited:

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
No brutality is not an effective way. Worked well in vietnam right? lets start napalming every enemy village. See how quick the local population turn against you. Every single counter-insurgency expert knows this.
Why do you think the Assad regime hasn't toppled yet?
Why do you think the Israeli regime hasn't toppled yet?
Why do you think, sans Western intervention, the Serbians would have demolished the other Slavic states?
How were the Boers and the Mau Mau rebellions resolved?
How did the Sri Lankan state beat the Tamils?


liberal democracies have a very low tolerance for brutality. that's why we're not good at crushing insurgencies. in one sense it's a shame. in many others, it's not.

brutality doesn't have to be the only tool in your counter insurgency box, but it's the most efficient one.

I'm not saying poverty causes terrorism. But who is more likely going to be recruited?
a lot of it has to do with lack of economic opportunity.
okay guy. if you're not making a causal statement then your statements are trivial.

destroying poppy fields.
opium production has skyrocketed in Afghanistan. the taliban are the ones that destroyed poppy fields. also, lol at implying that your average afghan makes ANYTHING from working on the poppy fields.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
No brutality is not an effective way. Worked well in vietnam right? lets start napalming every enemy village. See how quick the local population turn against you. Every single counter-insurgency expert knows this. Why do you think there has been calls for greater restraints on western soldiers? Why do you think Aussie troops don't shoot at everything that moves? There's a strategic reason for that. I'm not saying poverty causes terrorism. But who is more likely going to be recruited? Some saudi prince living a baller lifestyle with swag or some kid who grew up extremely poor with no way out, until mr al qaeda pays him 3 times the annual salary in a month. Taliban boys get paid 500 bucks a month to shoot at american soldiers, compared to making almost 0 because we fucked with their livelihoods by destroying poppy fields.
actually, the Taliban were responsible for this, one of the few arguably positive contributions they made was clamping down on the drug trade that local warlords were using to buy weapons (which btw means that most of the local Afghani population received no benefit from the opium trade)

edit: beaten
 

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,570
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
they're obviously citizens of sovereign pakistan, but that's not really what you're talking about about. FATA and northern balochistan, where the drone campaign is, are an exclusively pashtun area - pashtuns being pretty much synonymous with afghan. so when a punjabs and sindhis hear about drone strikes in FATA and northern balochistan, they really hear about pashtuns being blown up. its a mistake to talk about a monolithic "pakistani" consciousness, especially on an issue that directly affects a subgroup of an ethnic minority. also, a lot of pakistanis know that this program operates at the consent of their government.

the best estimates of civilian to combatant casualties in the pakistani drone campaign are between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6. rather trivial in the scheme of things. the drone issue is exaggerated.
I'm not ok with civilians being killed but reduction of casualties is always a positive thing, thanks for clearing up the other stuff
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,897
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
So if the fact that so many muslims are either barbaric or downright absolutely bathsit insane isn't because of Islam, it's because...they're brown?
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So if the fact that so many muslims are either barbaric or downright absolutely bathsit insane isn't because of Islam, it's because...they're brown?
Yeah white people never did anything fucked up









Gee its not like this guy
had anything with teaching the arab world insurgency tactics and how to build roadside bombs.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,897
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
hahahaahahahaahahahahahaha

yes terrorists are violent because once white dude taught a few of them to be a century ago
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top