Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Insurgent numbers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Insurgent numbers

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200710...47c7853_3.html

    In light of the above report, and keeping in mind that engagments like this one are reletively rare (as it says above), in Iraq and Afghanistan what estimates of insurgent numbers are there? Also how long can they continue to find fighters?

  • #2
    There's really no telling the number. With these kind of groups it varies on the season, how much they are paid to sit around and do nothing, and if there is actually any fighting.

    I am confident that MI6, CIA, NSA, Mossad and every other intelligence agency in the world could give you an estimate. So, what is the real number? Probably somewhere between the lowest and highest estimate.
    "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

    Comment


    • #3
      TB has a point . . .

      In addition, if you start giving out numbers, the jerks in the media will try to get you to start giving out body counts. Mostly so they can turn around and criticize you for using body counts, "just like Vietnam!".

      More important indicators are levels of popular sympathy for the various combatants among locals who have the choice to turn them in, support them, or try to keep out of it. Also the willingness of people to donate to groups like al Qaeda, and governments like Iran to support sympathetic militants.

      - but I hope you find what you are looking for
      Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

      Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
        In addition, if you start giving out numbers, the jerks in the media will try to get you to start giving out body counts. Mostly so they can turn around and criticize you for using body counts, "just like Vietnam!".

        More important indicators are levels of popular sympathy for the various combatants among locals who have the choice to turn them in, support them, or try to keep out of it. Also the willingness of people to donate to groups like al Qaeda, and governments like Iran to support sympathetic militants.

        - but I hope you find what you are looking for
        Coyote, why is it you have some sort of beef with "the media"? I know "the media" tends to be more on the liberal side, but in the end "the media" is just that..."the media". It shouldn't matter what the media reports or more to the point how they report stories with or without a spin, because in the end its up to every individual to decide for themselves what to think. Is it that you feel "the media" has that much sway on the average person?

        I never understood the obsession with slamming the media, which usually originates from a conservative.

        Comment


        • #5
          Long history . . .

          I'm in the middle of my third career and each time I've moved into a new field I've noticed something about the way the media covers it. It's dumbed down to what the reporter can understand.

          What a reporter should do IMO is dig into the story until they can tell it accurately with enough detail so that the reader can follow the critical points.

          But deadlines and bottom-lines set the limit on quality. What reporters really do [just watch a pentagon news conference] is keep asking the same question different ways until the subject comes up with a lowest-common-denominator answer that ends the suffering but does not really capture the key elements of the story.

          I watched one interview where they went back and forth about 'carpet bombing' for five or six rounds. The term 'carpet bombing' was invented by a reporter. It is not a tactic, doctrine, or mission in the lexicon of any air force. The reporter never really seemed to grasp that.

          So my frustration is that I pick up story after story about the military, science, the federal workforce, government contractors, income tax policy, etc. fields that I've worked in, and I see the most absurd oversimplifications time and time again. And I eventually asked myself, "If I know them to be hopelessly inaccurate on subjects in which I have some expertise, why should I trust their coverage of stories where I lack expertise? How would I spot their mistakes?" Assuming their quality is constant, I'll probably learn just as much on the web as reading the paper. So I quit reading the paper.

          I end up getting much of my information from specialized sources. The Washington Post knows more than anyone else is likely to print about the political situation of the DC government. But they buy much of their overseas coverage from services, just like the other big outlets. So I get newsletters on military and political affairs and economic issues. I get magazines that specialize in certain subjects that concern and interest me. And I keep tabs on sources that people post here who seem to have a better than average grasp of the world around them.

          Most major dailies write at about the 8th grade level of English comprehension. That just doesn't cut it for the topics I'm interested in.
          Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

          Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

          Comment


          • #6
            GTG, the 'conservative' bit is bull. The liberals do it every time the semantical media doesn't square with the talking points they issue to them, too.

            What is it about the media? Har! You give the average person on the street far to much credit for thinking & caring about issues they otherwise have no interest in sorting out for themselves, much less researching in a diverse sense across the board of media outlets. For them, it comes to a point when they hear or read that an issue effects them & they suddenly take to getting all their information & accepted opinions from those they've grown use to blindly 'trusting', much as the likes of Wally, Dan & Brit. This with no effort to seek other information/opinion because, frankly speaking, that's the fullest extent to which they choose to go - and no further. This makes for little more than sheeple, each forming their resultant sounds & sentences from little bedrock fact or information to begin with.

            You can say that the media ain't much in the way of a threat upon mankind in general... but there is no denying that the long established combined global media constitutes the single most dangerous weapon pointed at mankind's noggin, this, solely by the fact that they drastically influence the mindset, beliefs, & opinions of more than half the worlds population - the lazy as mentioned previous - simply by their continuing use of the spoken/written word in semantically crafted statements, shaped in such fashion as to foster the exact picture they would seek to have formed in the minds of those same ignorant consumers.

            I know it... & you know it. Simply because you & many others say otherwise, does not make it so. If you are even to suggest that most all media presentations of 'news' & 'fact' are not crafted - by the use of words in the semantical fashion so reported - to create a desired perception in the mind of those that lazily accept it, you are living with blinders on.

            The old establishment global media & politicians play the same game.

            Sometimes opposed to each other... sometimes in cahoots...

            Just me opinion... could be wrong... I doubt it.

            Last edited by Admiral; 28 Oct 07, 20:45. Reason: Spellin. Shulda staid in skuol...
            On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

            ACG History Today

            BoRG

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Admiral View Post
              GTG, the 'conservative' bit is bull. The liberals do it every time the semantical media doesn't square with the talking points they issue to them, too.

              What is it about the media? Har! You give the average person on the street far to much credit for thinking & caring about issues they otherwise have no interest in sorting out for themselves, much less researching in a diverse sense across the board of media outlets. For them, it comes to a point when they hear or read that an issue effects them & they suddenly take to getting all their information & accepted opinions from those they've grown use to blindly 'trusting', much as the likes of Wally, Dan & Brit. This with no effort to seek other information/ opinion because, frankly speaking, that's the fullest extent to which they choose to go - and no further. This makes for little more than sheeple, each forming their resultant sounds & sentences from little bedrock fact or information to begin with.

              You can say that the media ain't much in the way of a threat upon mankind in general... but there is no denying that the long established combined global media constitutes the single most dangerous weapon pointed at mankind's noggin, this, solely by the fact that they drastically influence the mindset, beliefs, & opinions of more than half the worlds population - the lazy as mentioned previous - simply by their continuing use of the spoken/written word in semantically crafted statements, shaped in such fashion as to foster the exact picture they would seek to have formed in the minds of those same ignorant consumers.

              I know it... & you know it. Simply because you & many others say otherwise, does not make it so. If you are even to suggest that most all media presentations of 'news' & 'fact' are not crafted - by the use of words in the semantical fashion so reported - to create a desired perception in the mind of those that lazily accept it, you are living with blinders on.

              The old establishment global media & politicians play the same game.

              Sometimes opposed to each other... sometimes in cahoots...

              Just me opinion... could be wrong... I doubt it.

              Ok, lets run with this. How does the global media decide what message to put across? Do the meet daily, weekly, monthly???? We've got dozens/hundreds of corporations that just happen to decide they want to feed a certain, "crafted" message at the masses. OK, who's behind it? What do they get out of this activity? Is this the "Vast Left wing conspiracy" out to take over the planet. Hilary sounds silly saying it about the right and so does anyone else saying it about the left....
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                I guess its articles like the AP one that updates daily on yahoonews that just lists how many US soliders are dead in Iraq that you are annoyed with...or at least the kind of mindset that would post something like daily. I do find that somewhat strange.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It doesn't take a conspiracy just short-sighted policies that don't serve the public interest. Out of thousands of potential stories that might be newsworthy to you or I, the big outlets first decide what is and is not "news" so you've immediately lost a chance to learn something that might have been important to you.

                  [rant]Example: Why on earth do the TV networks cover car crashes and house fires on their national news shows? If the fire was local I will see it on the local news. If it wasn't they are wasting my time by showing it. And they are wasting air time they could have used to cover something substantive.

                  Sorry - pet peeve [/rant]

                  You know we need a good set of [rant] tags for these forums.
                  Last edited by GCoyote; 29 Oct 07, 06:33. Reason: needed a not
                  Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                  Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not annoyed, I recognize their reporting for what it is & why it is as it is. I search out all I can on issues in many sources & let the wind separate the wheat from the chaff in my own mind. Remaining annoyed all my life is pointless & serves nothing. So I ain't.

                    As for any such 'combined' participation... don't be silly nor daft. Nobody suggested they are marching to the same band, though many seem to have the same music. They each have their own agendas & interests... & they each generally seem to support each others notions, more than criticize each other. Maybe it's a product of their much more progressive 'journalistic' edgumucations... enh... save the world from itself by the mighty quill, so to speak... problem is, people should be informed what is & what ain't... not what is fit for print, & what don't fit the model or the agenda.

                    Run with it where you will,, it changes their semantics & the ignorant to which they serve their slop, in no manner. It is as it is, regardless your inquiries & your games... Keep runnin & chasing your tail, if you will... I got better things to do & consider.

                    Cheers, mate!

                    Wheres the popcorn?

                    Thank yee, Lass!
                    Last edited by Admiral; 29 Oct 07, 07:25.
                    On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                    ACG History Today

                    BoRG

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post
                      Ok, lets run with this. How does the global media decide what message to put across? Do the meet daily, weekly, monthly???? We've got dozens/hundreds of corporations that just happen to decide they want to feed a certain, "crafted" message at the masses. OK, who's behind it? What do they get out of this activity? Is this the "Vast Left wing conspiracy" out to take over the planet. Hilary sounds silly saying it about the right and so does anyone else saying it about the left....
                      This is exactly what Hillary Clinton claimed when she preached about the 'right wing conspiracy'. She actually promoted the idea that talk show hosts called each other to set up their idiological arguments.

                      No, I doubt if most meda shops talk each other up before they run an article on anything. The point is that most of the mainstream media are liberal leaning/socialist and this is reflected in their reporting. There are very few investigative journalists who give you just the facts anymore. They all think they are so important that the public must surely want to know their viewpoint. Besides, it's much easier to give an opinion than to actually delve into a complicated mess.
                      "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                        This is exactly what Hillary Clinton claimed when she preached about the 'right wing conspiracy'. She actually promoted the idea that talk show hosts called each other to set up their idiological arguments.

                        No, I doubt if most meda shops talk each other up before they run an article on anything. The point is that most of the mainstream media are liberal leaning/socialist and this is reflected in their reporting. There are very few investigative journalists who give you just the facts anymore. They all think they are so important that the public must surely want to know their viewpoint. Besides, it's much easier to give an opinion than to actually delve into a complicated mess.
                        I agree with you, and she looked silly doing it. Hence my reply to The Admiral.

                        The big media groups tend to have a liberal slant, especially when it comes to what story to run and or emphasize (it easy to get caught tweaking the facts, especially now days, harder to get caught if you just don't mention it). I'd also say that FOX along with the Murdoch publishing group has the same degree of slant, it just goes the other way. I find it interesting in the other tread on the media that some people will say that the media is leftest but then insist that FOX is straight down the middle.....
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GeneralTsoGood View Post
                          Coyote, why is it you have some sort of beef with "the media"? I know "the media" tends to be more on the liberal side, but in the end "the media" is just that..."the media". It shouldn't matter what the media reports or more to the point how they report stories with or without a spin, because in the end its up to every individual to decide for themselves what to think. Is it that you feel "the media" has that much sway on the average person?

                          I never understood the obsession with slamming the media, which usually originates from a conservative.
                          The "media" isn't just the media. Media is a business, a business that makes money more easily from sensationalism than factual evidence quite frequently. The media takes the prinicple that how you frame a story presses opinion, much like in a courtroom. Except the media plays in the court of public opinion and regardless of conservative or liberal, will spin any story to benefit their profits over presenting the facts. The days of responsible reporting are long gone.
                          Welcome to the adult world. Kinda sucks when you have to be the responsible ones and take all the pot shots from the chagrined lefties and mongoloid celebrities, who don't know their collective posteriors from sound economic policy. - 98ZJUSMC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GeneralTsoGood View Post
                            Coyote, why is it you have some sort of beef with "the media"? I know "the media" tends to be more on the liberal side, but in the end "the media" is just that..."the media". It shouldn't matter what the media reports or more to the point how they report stories with or without a spin, because in the end its up to every individual to decide for themselves what to think. Is it that you feel "the media" has that much sway on the average person?

                            I never understood the obsession with slamming the media, which usually originates from a conservative.
                            Why don't you ask AvramL about this? I'm sure he'll be only too pleased to give you his "expert" opinion.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X