|
British commanders condemn US tactics (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
But I've repeatedly told you it's not from one source. It's from multiple first hand sources. As for taking things to heart and listening why don't you try it? And I still don't get what your arguement is?
Edit: I mean has anyone here been to Iraq and seen this (i.e. first hand)? No so according to you we can't talk about it.... But I've staed things from people who have and you've paid no attention to them....... you know why becuase you are ignorant..... go look that up |
Actually I live right by Camp Pendleton in San Diego and I have a lot of Marine friends who are over there and have come back. All of them said the British troops are more in the way then helping out.
A lot of em said they lack leadership skills in their squads.
Pete C
Jason A
There I have sufficiently debunked you arguement. we done? |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
I bet you were one of those numbnutz that believed messr Bush and co when they said "THEY HAVE WMD's BUT WE CANT SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE COS WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES!!!":haha: :stongue: :haha: |
Wow- that was informative and useful.
Shut your cack holster please. tks.
:rolleyes:
(yea yea- this isnt too useful either but I've seen nothing but stupid comments from you) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Andrew T (I don't want to say his full name cos I haven't asked him about saying anything to anyone) who is in the Britsh Marines (reserve actually) whos been in Basara on two seperate stints, he lives across the road from me(my home town I mean I'm at uni) and has done since I was born. Is the one I know best.
Others include another Marine but I don't trust him so much cos he's a bit of an arse (he could exagerate a bit maybe), who is more a mate of a mate but I've spoken to him about it too. I don't know which part of Iraq he was in.
And another who hasn't been in Iraq but does know people who are there and knows the way the American military works.
Now ok if you want to be picky about it you can chalk off 2 of them esspecially the second (although he's a very resonable person). But lets put it this way I'd give much more credance to anything any of them say than anything anyone who isn't involved would say. And to say that they have no idea or would lie for no reson is wrong. And so to simple go "fallacy!" to ANY source basicly isn't going to be very constructive in a disscussion is it? |
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?
Obviously I don't go "fallacy!" to ANY source, because you're right, it's not very constructive. Quoting a source is by no means fallacious - it is only a fallacy when that source is either unidentified or not qualified to have an authoritative opinion on the subject. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
Actually I live right by Camp Pendleton in San Diego and I have a lot of Marine friends who are over there and have come back. All of them said the British troops are more in the way then helping out.
A lot of em said they lack leadership skills in their squads. |
Ok well I'm moving into spectulative mode. But as for saying that the Britsh troops "are more in the way than helping out".... does that sound true? I really don't want to attepmt to rubish your sources becuase you could say they are just as valid as mine, which they are I suppose. But I would very much doubt the British troops are "just in the way". Esspecially since they have more experiance in these type of operations. And given they were trainning the Americans early on due to the fact that the American troops were not trainned to deal with these situations. Perhaps the "getting in the way" manifests itself in restraint. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?
Obviously I don't go "fallacy!" to ANY source, because you're right, it's not very constructive. Quoting a source is by no means fallacious - it is only a fallacy when that source is either unidentified or not qualified to have an authoritative opinion on the subject. |
Could you please keep your replies to 2 maybe max 3 syllables sentences please.
My brain hurts reading your replies. :D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
No did get it, what I ment was firstly the officer doesn't really make a genralisation. He is talking about the way the American troops are told to do things and the mentality behind that. It's not a genralisation as it's a fact not an observation. Secondly I don't see what value your posted added to the discussion by quoting, at your own admission, genralisations.
But anyway George is right the torygragh really arn't the sort to talk about these types of things. Any negative comments from them about active troops are VERY unlikely to be unsubstantuated. And do you really think ANY british officer could add his name to that type of comment? And from all the people I've spoken to in the forces I've heard similar things and they have experianced it first hand. |
The following statement is a fact?:
| quote: |
American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".
|
Ok well please demonstrate how this is not a generalization and is in fact, fact. Making the case for a fact is going to be pretty hard to do since the source prefaces his very own statement with the clause, "My view ..."
But I'm sure there's a veritable wealth of material out there that proves the aforementioned thesis ... perhaps I'm just not reading the right material. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?
|
Well one source I'll impicitly trust one which I'd take with a pinch of salt(who was in iraq before). He said the American way of doing things was fundentally differnt to the British and he said they have a tendancy to overreact to anything they reguard as a threat. Further he said they also have the tendancy to reguard basicly any iraqi as a threat. They don't view them as anything but threats. And they don't view the war/occupation as real in a way, they see it as a game well atleast act that way.
Actually I have seen from other sources a video which I think shows this best. I want you to watch it then think about your reaction and post it here.
Link |
|
|
| Spankster |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
Wow- that was informative and useful.
Shut your cack holster please. tks.
:rolleyes:
(yea yea- this isnt too useful either but I've seen nothing but stupid comments from you) |
On the contrary the point I was trying to make is many of the peeps who refuse to accept the article as credible, due to the fact that the source of the information chose to remain anonymous are more than likely the same peeps who accepted much of the media bull generated by the bush administration about WMD's, even though they too were unwilling to reveal any evidence or source of information.(Officially dubya and co lied 227 times leading up to GWII).
if you can accept GW Bushes lies without any evidence/source of info, maybe with a credible news agancy like the Melbourne Age, you can accept their story. Remember the BBC and Bliar debacle when anonymous sources got revealed. People end up mysteriously dieing!
If you still have no idea what i'm talking about then my friend you really have no idea!
:gsmile: :tongue3 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
Could you please keep your replies to 2 maybe max 3 syllables sentences please.
My brain hurts reading your replies. :D |
It shall be so - I'll even do it in ebonics for you:
"Nigga say wha? Don't be talkin' no trash from those homies who ain't knowin' their , dawg. Y'all think you got sumpin' on me, then show me yo proof biatch."
Better? :) |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. |
Yes he has prefaced it with "my view". And yes I was wrong to say it is a fact. But would you dispute that the average american solider like many (american) posters on here belives that " They view them as untermenschen. " Or it is somehow a good thing to do in an occupation. I'd actually agree in a war situation (edit: i.e. you have to few threats as targets). But not in a occupation you can't do that and not civlians as some people on here suggested. I belive the problem lies in tha the American troops are trainned for war and this is not war, it's occupation. I mean I understand (as much as one who hasn't been in the situation could) that it is a hugely stressfull situation.
But honestly answer this question do you belive an american soliders life is more valuable than an iraqis? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?
Obviously I don't go "fallacy!" to ANY source, because you're right, it's not very constructive. Quoting a source is by no means fallacious - it is only a fallacy when that source is either unidentified or not qualified to have an authoritative opinion on the subject. |
Bloody hell! What do you think this is?! A ing academic paper we're all taking part in?! Do you want us to reference all our posts using the Harvard Referencing system or summat?! Fallacy fallacy ing fallacy!!!!!!!!
This is an internet chat site! We express on it opinions! We are but mere mortals who aren't experts on anything!
Everything everyone says on here is a ing fallacy you muppet if it is our opinions! Why the hell should we only have an opinion that can be backed up by the same opinion as an "expert"?!
Would it really hurt you so much to come up with your own thoughts every now and again instead of loitering round threads waiting for the perfect opertunity to proundly proclaim that stupid ing website you post up in every thread you take part in and announce: "This, people, is a fallacy!"
Get a life mate! |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Well one source I'll impicitly trust one which I'd take with a pinch of salt(who was in iraq before). He said the American way of doing things was fundentally differnt to the British and he said they have a tendancy to overreact to anything they reguard as a threat. Further he said they also have the tendancy to reguard basicly any iraqi as a threat. They don't view them as anything but threats. And they don't view the war/occupation as real in a way, they see it as a game well atleast act that way.
Actually I have seen from other sources a video which I think shows this best. I want you to watch it then think about your reaction and post it here.
Link |
OK- So maybe i read a bit into what my friends said.
Their exact words were
"They are hesitant and indecisive."
now- I dont know about you but if im fighting side by side with someone- I dont think i want those traits with my companions I am fighting with.
What other conclusion can you draw? |
|
|
|
|
