Report: Top Pakistani Taliban Leader Killed In U.s. Drone Strike

[SteeleJoe]

Heard he was # 2 on television here in States. Something is working well now. Seems like we had a heck of a problem getting top command early on. Now they are falling pretty rapidly.

Eventually, they will get the drift and not want to be in command lest they get a visit by Mr. Drone. Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

They had their chance to run around in the dirty PJs preaching Allah and smoking the Afghan top commodity, opium, with impunity, but they screwed up, killed the wrong innocents and now they will pay the price.

Methinks you oversimplify a bit and are perhaps somewhat overly optimistic.

And I don't think I've got the energy to go through this discussion again (as I have so many times over the years) but with all due respect, anyone who thinks that an insurgency can be defeated by overwhelming force alone simply doesn't know much about COIN - or even history.

Fortunately most of the professionals know better.

[F430murci]

Heard he was # 2 on television here in States. Something is working well now. Seems like we had a heck of a problem getting top command early on. Now they are falling pretty rapidly.

Eventually, they will get the drift and not want to be in command lest they get a visit by Mr. Drone. Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

They had their chance to run around in the dirty PJs preaching Allah and smoking the Afghan top commodity, opium, with impunity, but they screwed up, killed the wrong innocents and now they will pay the price.

Methinks you oversimplify a bit and are perhaps somewhat overly optimistic.

And I don't think I've got the energy to go through this discussion again (as I have so many times over the years) but with all due respect, anyone who thinks that an insurgency can be defeated by overwhelming force alone simply doesn't know much about COIN - or even history.

Fortunately most of the professionals know better.

Your no more an expert than I am and we are both entitled to our opinions. So conserve your energy because you have nothing to teach.

My opinion is that overwhelming force is all they understand. Peace, treaties, concessions and diplomacy has never and will never work.

Drones are more surgical and seem to be picking off command components. Eventually, they will either get the message or keep dying. Will it eradicate? Of course not. Will it impair? absolutely!

Tactical nukes is the only true way to curtail, but not cure or eradicate, the plague. Drones are the middle of the road solution to futile diplomacy and tactical nukes.

The threat that they will just hate US more. Please . . . They already hate and target US citizens any chance they get and their teachings, religion and society fosters hate.

[Credo]

My favorite argument is that when we do something, it makes them angry and that is why they attack us. So if we do nothing, does anyone really think they will all join hands and sing Kumbaya?

I am not for the use of excessive force --and no I can't define excessive force -- but keeping them on the run and in a state of chaos seems to be a reasonable plan.

[SteeleJoe]

Heard he was # 2 on television here in States. Something is working well now. Seems like we had a heck of a problem getting top command early on. Now they are falling pretty rapidly.

Eventually, they will get the drift and not want to be in command lest they get a visit by Mr. Drone. Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

They had their chance to run around in the dirty PJs preaching Allah and smoking the Afghan top commodity, opium, with impunity, but they screwed up, killed the wrong innocents and now they will pay the price.

Methinks you oversimplify a bit and are perhaps somewhat overly optimistic.

And I don't think I've got the energy to go through this discussion again (as I have so many times over the years) but with all due respect, anyone who thinks that an insurgency can be defeated by overwhelming force alone simply doesn't know much about COIN - or even history.

Fortunately most of the professionals know better.

Your no more an expert than I am and we are both entitled to our opinions. So conserve your energy because you have nothing to teach.

My opinion is that overwhelming force is all they understand. Peace, treaties, concessions and diplomacy has never and will never work.

Drones are more surgical and seem to be picking off command components. Eventually, they will either get the message or keep dying. Will it eradicate? Of course not. Will it impair? absolutely!

Tactical nukes is the only true way to curtail, but not cure or eradicate, the plague. Drones are the middle of the road solution to futile diplomacy and tactical nukes.

The threat that they will just hate US more. Please . . . They already hate and target US citizens any chance they get and their teachings, religion and society fosters hate.

You have no more knowledge of my expertise - such as it is - than I have of yours ( though again, given the degree to which your view conflicts with that of acknowledged experts - those from whom I have gained my own understanding after many years of some effort - I have some doubts about your expertise; but I don't claim superiority).

You most certainly are entitled to your opinions and I never have suggested otherwise nor would I ever.

I made no mention of treaties, concessions or diplomacy nor have they have much role if any in a viable strategy as far as I'm concerned and I'd have an extremely hard time stomaching any such efforts even when and if they are strategically warranted. The fact that you would cite those as of they are the only things available outside of force reflects a dearth of understanding as well.

You needn't sell me on drones. I have clearly not denied their effectiveness nor advocated they don't be used.

As for the "threat that they will just hate US more" - did you not see me mock that sort of thinking earlier? I am all for killing or capturing avowed enemies. I heartily welcome it, especially the former (and once upon a time I signed up for some rather arduous stuff in the hopes of having such a job or helping those that did). Having said that, only a fool and/or someone rather ignorant of the necessary facts wouldn't who recognize the utility, indeed the necessity of, to whatever extent possible - within the strategic constraints of what tactical trade-offs one is willing to make - eradicating and denying a base of support for insurgents and inhibiting growth of their apparatus.

[SteeleJoe]

My favorite argument is that when we do something, it makes them angry and that is why they attack us. So if we do nothing, does anyone really think they will all join hands and sing Kumbaya?

I am not for the use of excessive force --and no I can't define excessive force -- but keeping them on the run and in a state of chaos seems to be a reasonable plan.

Remember when ObL was killed and people said, "NOW we're/you're in for it!"?

Unbelievable. (Literally).

[mingalaba]

So when are the extremists in western countries going to be killed? Can´t wait for that...

[Ulysses G.]

So when are the extremists in western countries going to be killed? Can´t wait for that...

They already got the Boston Bombers a few weeks ago, Edited May 30, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

They also got the ones that killed the British soldier as well.

The British won't be executed, but the guy in the US has a good chance of getting his jabs for the big vacation he'll be going on.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Credo

[simple1]

"incompetent strategic appreciation". A quote from the then British Chief of Defence Staff (now Lord Boyce) on the US endeavour to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Primarily aimed at Rumsfeld’s “light footprint, risk averse” approach. You may recall Rumsfeld refused to permit US Marines together with US & UK Special Forces, already in Afghanistan, to block Al Qaeda escape from Tora Tora over the border into Pakistan, but wanted to rely on aerial bombardment, using weapons such as air burst bombs and local US funded militia. Over to the experts on TV to debate “incompetent strategic appreciation” and relevance or otherwise to the topic.

For those interested in strategic and tactical issues in the fight against Islamic extremist groups you may like to read Sandy Gall's book "War Against the Taliban"

Edited May 30, 2013 by simple1

[FDog]

I keep reading the posts above but just can't find where SteeleJoe mentioned he was an expert.

[SteeleJoe]

Heard he was # 2 on television here in States. Something is working well now. Seems like we had a heck of a problem getting top command early on. Now they are falling pretty rapidly.

Eventually, they will get the drift and not want to be in command lest they get a visit by Mr. Drone. Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

They had their chance to run around in the dirty PJs preaching Allah and smoking the Afghan top commodity, opium, with impunity, but they screwed up, killed the wrong innocents and now they will pay the price.

Methinks you oversimplify a bit and are perhaps somewhat overly optimistic.

And I don't think I've got the energy to go through this discussion again (as I have so many times over the years) but with all due respect, anyone who thinks that an insurgency can be defeated by overwhelming force alone simply doesn't know much about COIN - or even history.

Fortunately most of the professionals know better.

Your no more an expert than I am and we are both entitled to our opinions. So conserve your energy because you have nothing to teach.

My opinion is that overwhelming force is all they understand. Peace, treaties, concessions and diplomacy has never and will never work.

Drones are more surgical and seem to be picking off command components. Eventually, they will either get the message or keep dying. Will it eradicate? Of course not. Will it impair? absolutely!

Tactical nukes is the only true way to curtail, but not cure or eradicate, the plague. Drones are the middle of the road solution to futile diplomacy and tactical nukes.

The threat that they will just hate US more. Please . . . They already hate and target US citizens any chance they get and their teachings, religion and society fosters hate.

You have no more knowledge of my expertise - such as it is - than I have of yours ( though again, given the degree to which your view conflicts with that of acknowledged experts - those from whom I have gained my own understanding after many years of some effort - I have some doubts about your expertise; but I don't claim superiority).

You most certainly are entitled to your opinions and I never have suggested otherwise nor would I ever.

I made no mention of treaties, concessions or diplomacy nor have they have much role if any in a viable strategy as far as I'm concerned and I'd have an extremely hard time stomaching any such efforts even when and if they are strategically warranted. The fact that you would cite those as of they are the only things available outside of force reflects a dearth of understanding as well.

You needn't sell me on drones. I have clearly not denied their effectiveness nor advocated they don't be used.

As for the "threat that they will just hate US more" - did you not see me mock that sort of thinking earlier? I am all for killing or capturing avowed enemies. I heartily welcome it, especially the former (and once upon a time I signed up for some rather arduous stuff in the hopes of having such a job or helping those that did). Having said that, only a fool and/or someone rather ignorant of the necessary facts wouldn't who recognize the utility, indeed the necessity of, to whatever extent possible - within the strategic constraints of what tactical trade-offs one is willing to make - eradicating and denying a base of support for insurgents and inhibiting growth of their apparatus.

Sesquipedalian excess and relying upon or quoting Wikipedia does not make one an expert. When Wikipedia is quoting you and CNN is calling you for an interview on the subject, I would agree with you classifying yourself as an expert.

Just saw the above thanks to being awakened by a sick kid...

You seem to be taking this personal and it wasn't meant to be, however in all honesty that reply is one of the weakest Ive ever seen; not an even an attempt to address anything of substance.

Wikipedia seems to be a big thing to you - two references to it in one brief post. It can be a reasonably useful tool if used judiciously and fact checked and like many I use it on occasion as a shortcut. However, not even ONE single thing I've posted onthis thread is from there and I've not even glanced at it (or any other source) while posting on this thread;if you find something in my posts here that even resemble something in Wiki it means either the guy who wrote it has been reading some of the same experts as I or is one of those experts.

Two things that didn't directly affect me personally but, for reasons I won't bore anyone with, still had a fairly profound inpmpact on my life are the wars in Southeast Asia and Islamist terrorism. Both were a factor in my choice to spend some of my youth with plans to become the sort of supertrooper so many in Thailand apparently claim to have been (and some very modest progress in that direction -- much further than most soldiers but in those days one had to have a certain time in grade to attempt go to the next tier and due to personal tragedy I got out before I could go beyond the level where I was supporting the guys I wanted to one day be among). With that interest and goal in mind I began reading in the 80s everything I could on assymetrical warfare in all its forms (and on the wars in SEA and Afghanistan). I've read dozens of books and perhaps even more articles (from the most authoratative journals and magazines) , gone to lectures, corresponded with experts and operators, read DoD and SD materials, and applied considerable thought to it all.

Nonetheless, I didn't call myself an expert and wouldn't. On these things I'm merely a student and an occasional writer but I know I am justified in saying I have some knowledge and moreover that what I post reflects the views and theories of those who ARE experts - as well as being based on modern history (another passion) and some commmon sense. If you can refute my position then you should feel free to instead of the lame ad hominem above. If you can't, it is because mine is based on knowledge gained by people more qualified than both of us.

[wooloomooloo]

I watched an interview with the ex head of one of the UK intelligence agencies and a member of COBRA on BBC HARDtalk program yesterday. In his opinion the "War on Terror" will go on for generations...

He's right, but it's not rocket science.

Having been brought up in the '70s and early '80s in the midst of the IRA and UDA I'm aware there are many expert commentators and pundits on the subject but no experts capable of ever solving the conundrum of how to combat guerrilla warfare effectively. That's because there is no way to defeat a transient and opaque enemy in battle.

[NeverSure]

take a wild guess how many "top Taleban leaders" were killed in total

If you asked a terrorist sympathizer and apologist, the answer would be "none."

[NeverSure]

So when are the extremists in western countries going to be killed? Can´t wait for that...

When each government, deciding independently, has had enough. Or then again maybe they are incapable of reaching that decision.

[NeverSure]

Stand by for pay back!

You're kidding, right? The terrorists are opportunists and will kill a British soldier in London or anyone anywhere in the world. They have no concern for civilians or children either.

More people have died in S. Thailand from terrorists since 2000 than have died in the US at the hands of terrorists and that includes those killed on 9/11.

More people have died in S. Thailand since the wars in Iraq and Afghan began than all the allied soldiers who died in those two wars. Read that twice.

The point is that they will get anyone if it meets their agenda. NO one is immune.

As for payback, "get it on." They'll try it anyway. It's difficult for some people to understand US culture or even the use of drones, but US culture says "get it on." "Bring it."

Or as the movie said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Edited May 30, 2013 by NeverSure

[Scott]

Some posts have deleted. Stay on the topic and stop criticizing the level of expertise of other levels.

[Scott]

An off-topic troll post and reply have been deleted. Please stick to the topic.

[simple1]

Stand by for pay back!

You're kidding, right? The terrorists are opportunists and will kill a British soldier in London or anyone anywhere in the world. They have no concern for civilians or children either.

More people have died in S. Thailand from terrorists since 2000 than have died in the US at the hands of terrorists and that includes those killed on 9/11.

More people have died in S. Thailand since the wars in Iraq and Afghan began than all the allied soldiers who died in those two wars. Read that twice.

The point is that they will get anyone if it meets their agenda. NO one is immune.

As for payback, "get it on." They'll try it anyway. It's difficult for some people to understand US culture or even the use of drones, but US culture says "get it on." "Bring it."

Or as the movie said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Total coalition forces deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late 2012 were approx 7,000. Around 3800 in Iraq and 3,200 in Afganistan; so totals roughly equivalent to those the deep South since 2000. Up until 2004 there was a relatively low number of killed per year e.g. in.2002, 50 Thai security people murdered.

There is a larger percentage of Muslims killed in the deep South than Buddhists. It is very difficult to ascertain how many Muslims are killed by the security forces and the insurgents, as opposed to drug gangs, settling business disputes Thai style and so on.

In summary, I suggest your post contains a number of factual errors. If you disagree prove me wrong.

[NeverSure]

Stand by for pay back!

You're kidding, right? The terrorists are opportunists and will kill a British soldier in London or anyone anywhere in the world. They have no concern for civilians or children either.

More people have died in S. Thailand from terrorists since 2000 than have died in the US at the hands of terrorists and that includes those killed on 9/11.

More people have died in S. Thailand since the wars in Iraq and Afghan began than all the allied soldiers who died in those two wars. Read that twice.

The point is that they will get anyone if it meets their agenda. NO one is immune.

As for payback, "get it on." They'll try it anyway. It's difficult for some people to understand US culture or even the use of drones, but US culture says "get it on." "Bring it."

Or as the movie said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Total coalition forces deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late 2012 were approx 7,000. Around 3800 in Iraq and 3,200 in Afganistan; so totals roughly equivalent to those the deep South since 2000. Up until 2004 there was a relatively low number of killed per year e.g. in.2002, 50 Thai security people murdered.

There is a larger percentage of Muslims killed in the deep South than Buddhists. It is very difficult to ascertain how many Muslims are killed by the security forces and the insurgents, as opposed to drug gangs, settling business disputes Thai style and so on.

In summary, I suggest your post contains a number of factual errors. If you disagree prove me wrong.

A number of factual errors.

My point was that if they'll kill thousands in Thailand, they'll kill anywhere. I didn't lose that point. What other factual error might there have been?

I could have made the statement that "about as many..." and been accurate. I made one error, and that invalidates everything I said?

I was trying to make the points that the killers will kill anywhere including thousands in Thailand, and that the US isn't concerned about payback from terrorists because they'll try it over and over anyway, and get hammered.

It took ten years and God knows how much effort to get Osama Bin Laden. He felt too lucky I guess.

It's a fact that the terrorists kill in any country. It's a fact that the US will hunt them down and kill them. It's a fact that the US never gives up so don't screw with it if you want to live. It's a fact that it's a different culture than some other places and thus the drones.

[simple1]

Stand by for pay back!

You're kidding, right? The terrorists are opportunists and will kill a British soldier in London or anyone anywhere in the world. They have no concern for civilians or children either.

More people have died in S. Thailand from terrorists since 2000 than have died in the US at the hands of terrorists and that includes those killed on 9/11.

More people have died in S. Thailand since the wars in Iraq and Afghan began than all the allied soldiers who died in those two wars. Read that twice.

The point is that they will get anyone if it meets their agenda. NO one is immune.

As for payback, "get it on." They'll try it anyway. It's difficult for some people to understand US culture or even the use of drones, but US culture says "get it on." "Bring it."

Or as the movie said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Total coalition forces deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late 2012 were approx 7,000. Around 3800 in Iraq and 3,200 in Afganistan; so totals roughly equivalent to those the deep South since 2000. Up until 2004 there was a relatively low number of killed per year e.g. in.2002, 50 Thai security people murdered.

There is a larger percentage of Muslims killed in the deep South than Buddhists. It is very difficult to ascertain how many Muslims are killed by the security forces and the insurgents, as opposed to drug gangs, settling business disputes Thai style and so on.

In summary, I suggest your post contains a number of factual errors. If you disagree prove me wrong.

A number of factual errors.

My point was that if they'll kill thousands in Thailand, they'll kill anywhere. I didn't lose that point. What other factual error might there have been?

I could have made the statement that "about as many..." and been accurate. I made one error, and that invalidates everything I said?

I was trying to make the points that the killers will kill anywhere including thousands in Thailand, and that the US isn't concerned about payback from terrorists because they'll try it over and over anyway, and get hammered.

It took ten years and God knows how much effort to get Osama Bin Laden. He felt too lucky I guess.

It's a fact that the terrorists kill in any country. It's a fact that the US will hunt them down and kill them. It's a fact that the US never gives up so don't screw with it if you want to live. It's a fact that it's a different culture than some other places and thus the drones.

Drones are effective, but will only disrupt the enemy. As already quoted by a very senior counter terrorism expert in the UK the conflict will go on for generations based upon the current scenarios. So in the meantime, best endeavours in the West and elsewhere to minimise the effectiveness of radical Islam terrorist attacks.

As someone mentioned their does not appear to be a COIN strategy to reverse the current situation, so the fight will go on for years and years.

What is US/NATO doing to address the elements within the Pakistani intelligence and military that are supporting radical Islamic organisations? Right now, at least in the public domain, seems to be just about zero. They are repeating the same mistakes as after the 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, when Pakistan reequipped the Taliban, mainly funded by Saudi money. It appears more likely than not, that the Taliban will control most of the rural areas, maybe including cities in the various provinces. What seems to be overlooked is the Taliban are nearly all Pashtun; the Pashtun in the Afgan security forces are very reluctant to engage the Taliban. So the makeup of the security forces in mainly comprised of ethic minorities. I am by no means an expert but this looks like a receipe for disaster.

Most analysts disagree that the conflict in Thailand’s deep South has to date been driven by Islamic ideology. As the conflict drags on it is likely that Islamic extremism will take hold; already there are reports in the media and from analysts that this is happening with the younger armed militants.

Edited May 31, 2013 by simple1

[SteeleJoe]

Stand by for pay back!

You're kidding, right? The terrorists are opportunists and will kill a British soldier in London or anyone anywhere in the world. They have no concern for civilians or children either.

More people have died in S. Thailand from terrorists since 2000 than have died in the US at the hands of terrorists and that includes those killed on 9/11.

More people have died in S. Thailand since the wars in Iraq and Afghan began than all the allied soldiers who died in those two wars. Read that twice.

The point is that they will get anyone if it meets their agenda. NO one is immune.

As for payback, "get it on." They'll try it anyway. It's difficult for some people to understand US culture or even the use of drones, but US culture says "get it on." "Bring it."

Or as the movie said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Total coalition forces deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late 2012 were approx 7,000. Around 3800 in Iraq and 3,200 in Afganistan; so totals roughly equivalent to those the deep South since 2000. Up until 2004 there was a relatively low number of killed per year e.g. in.2002, 50 Thai security people murdered.

There is a larger percentage of Muslims killed in the deep South than Buddhists. It is very difficult to ascertain how many Muslims are killed by the security forces and the insurgents, as opposed to drug gangs, settling business disputes Thai style and so on.

In summary, I suggest your post contains a number of factual errors. If you disagree prove me wrong.

A number of factual errors.

My point was that if they'll kill thousands in Thailand, they'll kill anywhere. I didn't lose that point. What other factual error might there have been?

I could have made the statement that "about as many..." and been accurate. I made one error, and that invalidates everything I said?

I was trying to make the points that the killers will kill anywhere including thousands in Thailand, and that the US isn't concerned about payback from terrorists because they'll try it over and over anyway, and get hammered.

It took ten years and God knows how much effort to get Osama Bin Laden. He felt too lucky I guess.

It's a fact that the terrorists kill in any country. It's a fact that the US will hunt them down and kill them. It's a fact that the US never gives up so don't screw with it if you want to live. It's a fact that it's a different culture than some other places and thus the drones.

Drones are effective, but will only disrupt the enemy. As already quoted by a very senior counter terrorism expert in the UK the conflict will go on for generations based upon the current scenarios. So in the meantime, best endeavours in the West and elsewhere to minimise the effectiveness of radical Islam terrorist attacks.

As someone mentioned their does not appear to be a COIN strategy to reverse the current situation, so the fight will go on for years and years.

What is US/NATO doing to address the elements within the Pakistani intelligence and military that are supporting radical Islamic organisations? Right now, at least in the public domain, seems to be just about zero. They are repeating the same mistakes as after the 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, when Pakistan reequipped the Taliban, mainly funded by Saudi money. It appears more likely than not, that the Taliban will control most of the rural areas, maybe including cities in the various provinces. What seems to be overlooked is the Taliban are nearly all Pashtun; the Pashtun in the Afgan security forces are very reluctant to engage the Taliban. So the makeup of the security forces in mainly comprised of ethic minorities. I am by no means an expert but this looks like a receipe for disaster.

Most analysts disagree that the conflict in Thailand’s deep South has to date been driven by Islamic ideology. As the conflict drags on it is likely that Islamic extremism will take hold; already there are reports in the media and from analysts that this is happening with the younger armed militants.

Nailed it.

[Sing_Sling]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

[Mosha]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

The quote function is one thing we can all agree on. It sucks.

[SteeleJoe]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

"Not really". That's all you got?

I suppose I could quibble about some things but on my first (admittedly quick) read through, it struck me as a relatively rare instance of someone having some idea what they were talking about on this thread and this topic.

EDIT TO ADD: That was perhaps a too harsh judgment on previous posts - Im in a hurry and didn't think it through - perhaps I should have said it had a rare level of genuine substance and nuance and was seemingly supported by actual knowledge.

Edited May 31, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[simple1]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

I respect your opinions, so look forward to your constructive commentary

[Sing_Sling]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

"Not really". That's all you got?

I suppose I could quibble about some things but on my first (admittedly quick) read through, it struck me as a relatively rare instance of someone having some idea what they were talking about on this thread and this topic.

EDIT TO ADD: That was perhaps a too harsh judgment on previous posts - Im in a hurry and didn't think it through - perhaps I should have said it had a rare level of genuine substance and nuance and was seemingly supported by actual knowledge.

'Nailed it' That's all you <sic> got?

[SteeleJoe]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

"Not really". That's all you got?

I suppose I could quibble about some things but on my first (admittedly quick) read through, it struck me as a relatively rare instance of someone having some idea what they were talking about on this thread and this topic.

EDIT TO ADD: That was perhaps a too harsh judgment on previous posts - Im in a hurry and didn't think it through - perhaps I should have said it had a rare level of genuine substance and nuance and was seemingly supported by actual knowledge.

'Nailed it' That's all you got?

That's all I have time for - to implicitly agree with a post that happens to go along well with what I had written in a couple (too) long posts on this thread. There wasn't much need to say more if I support a post, is there? Especially if I've already said a fair bit? If someone says a post is NOT accurate the it seems to me that's rather different and the onus is on them to say why. Especially if there only contribution is to snipe at others.

I'm sorry your post got deleted by the way - I thought it very illustrative of certain mindset and I felt I responded appropriately - but no need to try and turn this into some sort of puerile tit for tat rather than a reasonably civil exchange with actual points made.

BTW: I love a bit of choice pedantry (and the implied condescension) but I'm afraid "That's all you got" is a very common colloquialism despite it's lack of proper grammar...

Edited May 31, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Sing_Sling]

Nailed it.

Not really. (added to which, isn't this 'new' quote function awful!)

I respect your opinions, so look forward to your constructive commentary

Well, if you are going to sweet-talk me . . .

The quote function has made the flow quite difficult, but here are a few points though I don't know who made them.

'Bring it on' . . . Yes, indeed. It worked so well with Bush, didn't it? Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of mimed on the US side and tens or hundreds of thousands dead on the Iraqi and Afghan side - military and civilian

'Bring it on', indeed

Running out of battery and have some work to finish off - will resume later

[SteeleJoe]

The quote function has made the flow quite difficult, but here are a few points though I don't know who made them.

'Bring it on' . . . Yes, indeed. It worked so well with Bush, didn't it? Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of mimed on the US side and tens or hundreds of thousands dead on the Iraqi and Afghan side - military and civilian

'Bring it on', indeed

Running out of battery and have some work to finish off - will resume later

Odd that you don't know who made that "point" (a generous description) given that you already replied to it when it was first made...(I'm probably not allowed to repost a deleted post or I could refresh your memory).

Edited May 31, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Sing_Sling]

The quote function has made the flow quite difficult, but here are a few points though I don't know who made them.

'Bring it on' . . . Yes, indeed. It worked so well with Bush, didn't it? Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of mimed on the US side and tens or hundreds of thousands dead on the Iraqi and Afghan side - military and civilian

'Bring it on', indeed

Running out of battery and have some work to finish off - will resume later

Odd that you don't know who made that "point" (a generous description) given that you already replied to it when it was first made...(I'm probably not allowed to repost a deleted post or I could refresh your memory).

Perhaps I respond to the post, not the poster . . . stops me from forming an opinion before I respond - you should try it. I really have no idea who posted what and where and at what time to which post - please share your expertise on how this is done, I would like to be as disingenuous as you

(A bit of an insult regarding the poster who you say made a 'point' - calling it a generous description. For shame, for shame)