Guerilla Actions in Irak

It was a statement. You asked me to introduce balanced info on the thread by introducing the number of insurgents killed and the list of all provinces in the south where there were no fatalities.
I asked you several times last month if you meant to say there were NO casulaties in any southern/northern provinces. For 5 days you dodged the question, and now you show up one month later to say I got it wrong. Well, shoot me dead, I guess you lost that battle by forfeit. It was very easy for you to say yes or no at the time, but you didnt. Tough luck.
And whats up with this attitude anyways - what, am I your poodle,supposed to do the research for you and list ALL provinces where there were no casulties last month? Give me a break...

Oh, my! 13 provinces to go... yess, ssir!

So? Fatalities and KIA make up the casualty list. You did not ask for KIA ONLY, ssir!
About the links... well, they were working mighty fine 1 month ago.

learn more about guerilla war, then come back to me.

My conclusion -- stop wasting my time and yours with this childish thing. If you had something to say, you should have said it last month, when I paraded the link to that post all over this forum and you did not react.
And what exactly do you want?

Hi Imperialist,

I have checked out the four Americans. All died on active operations in Mosul, a mixed Sunni/Kurd city. That means that outside the Sunni areas, only one members of the coalition forces was killed in action in just one of Iraq's 18 provinces (Basrah). By my reckoning of your figures, that must mean that about half of Iraq's provinces saw no coaltion combat fatalities at all in the month in question.

It is this that I thought it important to highlight in order to gain a fuller picture of the one-sided, unredeemed tale of woe you were presenting. While much of what you reported was doubtless accurate, it was only part of the picture. The fact of the matter is that there is little or no active Iraqi resistance over most of the country at present. My point was that your selection of links failed to reveal this.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

Nope. They were definitely questions, not statements. Even on your posts they are quoted with question marks at the end.

It is very true that I asked for fatalities, not killed in action. However, does this mean I cannot then investigate the quality of the fatalities in order to find out to what degree they were attributable to Iraqi insurgent action? After all, we are discussing the extent of Iraqi insurgent activity, are we not?

How long I wait to reply is irrelevant. If you post something that I think is wrong I reserve the right to challenge it at any time and after any delay. After all, it isn't going to get corrected without being challenged, is it? You have exactly the same privilege.

As it happens I have been away on holiday for some 10 days, not 5, as was known to some other members of this forum in advance. This explains why I was not in a position to reply immediately.

I am always learning more about guerrilla war. Indeed, I have even served in one. (Check out the chats I have had with Reb about Rhodesia on Feldgrau over the last few years.) What is your qualification?

Cheers,

Sid.


P.S. Er, no, not 13 provinces to go, but 16.

Hi Imperialist,

In your last post you stated:

"I asked you several times last month if you meant to say there were NO casualties in any southern/northern provinces".

I have had a look and I can only find one such question on Jun 17 2005, 11.01am.

Where are the other "several times"?

Surely this is not a case of a fact without back-up later being found to be wrong?

Cheers,

Sid.

Well, it seems that the insurgents made another attack, killing three marines. They also killed over 20 civilians and wounded 17, many of who were children. What can I say? Do you actually think that the parents of those kids view in this moment the insurgents as freedom fighters? I doubt it. There are over 130,000 foreign soldiers in Irak. Couldn't they pick another target in order to "fight for freedom", one that didn't have children around it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5061400395.html

Well thanx for clarifying that after a month.
And no, your holiday was not at the time of those posts, you continued to be active during the 5 day period in which you deliberately avoided to clarify things.

I consider the subject closed.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 13, 2005 06:05 pm

Hi Imperialist,

How can the subject be closed?

You have left a good dozen questions unanswered, several of which have been repeatedly asked of you. This means that the subject remains very much open due to your own failure to address the questions raised.

Why so evasive? Why this desperate desire to wrap this up?

I put it to you that it is because you have been caught out giving a partial and non-representative account of events in Iraq and making a false statement regarding my posts.

If you have such a low regard for accuracy, ballance, the facts and other posters, why are you contributing to a non-fiction forum? There must be plenty of fiction forums where your approach would be more appropriate.

Cheers,

Sid.

You wrote half a dozen messages and did not reply to the actual message you wanted corrected. I had to tell you 2 times where you can find the message in the thread, but you said it was irrelevant, yet continued with your questions until I had to repost it myself. Afterwards the message concerned was no longer irrelevant and you started to disect it. Well, well.
If you want to play these silly ego games again, do it to someone else.
From what I've seen interacting with you, all you do is criticise style, form and opinions, yet when someone asks you something it has to literary pull the words out of you and remove the pomp to get a straight answer.
Until now you asked me in a very arrogant fashion to do a lot of backup for everything I say and yet you say very little yourself apart for asking those things. That was funny at first, but its starting to be annoying.

I did not accuse you of anything without offering you and me a chance to clarify what was said. I asked you that question in the thread and spread the link in the forum. Because you did not answer for 5 days thoughstill on this forum, I went forward and put my case.
One month later you came back and said that was not what you meant. FINE. I can accept your right to clarify things.
Now, seeing no other point in this, I said for me the subject is closed.

To get back on topic, it appears that you accept the Iraqis' right to fight the occupation, but claim that the resistance is not widespread. Well, that was what I said, they have the right to fight. Then where's the difference between what we are saying? We seem to agree on the basics.

Hi Imperialist,

Still misrepresenting the facts?

1) You put up the link in question when asked to provide evidence that I had posted something as fact without back-up and that it later proved to be wrong. Not so. Your link contained a question I had put, not a statement of fact. Therefore the link you offered was irrelevant to the question I had asked.

2) Not only that, but the link you offered didn't even answer a question I had previously asked: How many Iraqi provinces had seen no coalition fatalities in the month in question? As far as we can judge from the information you offered, in fact around half of all Iraqi provinces saw no coalition fatalities that month.

3) Even the reply you did give was misleading, as most of the fatalities you quoted were as the result of vehicle accidents and unrelated to the Iraqi resistance.

These may be ego games to you, but all I am interested in is the accurate representation of facts. If only you had such an interest in accurate facts this sorry squabble wouldn't even have started.

I have no interest in criticising form and opinions. My interest is in questioning dubious purported facts, unballanced reportage and opinions of doubtful substance, all of which you have offered in abundance during this thread.

In order to prevent yourself suffering similar embrarassment, all you have to do is stick to substantiated facts, differentiate them clearly from mere unsupported opinion and report them in a ballanced manner. Surely this is the least we can reasonably expect?

I think you will find my record of straight answers, if not perfect, puts yours to shame. If you would care to repeat any questions I have missed (there is at least one) I will happily answer them. All I would ask is that in future you keep such questions to the subject in hand and not use them as a diversion to avoid answering questions that are relevant. For example, of what possible relevance is the number of countries Britain has "civilised" to this discussion?

In return, all I ask is that you answer any questions you too have overlooked. Fair?

You didn't offer any opportunity to me to clarify what you had posted. I have that opportunity by virtue of the way the forum is set up. Stop taking credit for other peoples' hard work.

Why do you object to people questioning your opinions? This is a forum, not a personal platform from which to harangue a dumb crowd. If you open a thread you must expect to be questioned. Indeed, I would suggest it is your duty to reply, without evasion. Everyone else seems to accept this. Why can't you?

Maybe I am "arogant" and "pompous", that is not for me to decide. However, it is not the man that you should be playing, but the ball. It is not the way I write things that is important, but what I actually write. Instead of taking umbrage at my supposed "arogance" or "pomposity" and using various intellectually dishonest devices to avoid answering my questions or accepting responsibility for errors or omissions, I would suggest that you would be better advised to address the substance of what I state and ask in a straight manner (and not confuse the two, either).

As things stand, you have still not taken either of the honourable options open to you. Either:

1) Substantiate your claim to the effect that I have a history of advancing facts without back-up that later prove to be wrong.

or

2) Withdraw the claim.

There isn't a middle way. Either I am guilty or innocent.

To make such an accusation and then refuse to follow either of these courses is cowardly and dishonourable.

There isn't a way out marked "evasion". Either I am guilty or innocent.

Please do the decent thing.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Of course Iraqis do have an inherent right to fight, but not if the vast majority of the population do not support them and can be shown by virtue of passivity, elections and opinion polls to still prefer a peaceful resolution. What you present as an Iraqi national resistance is currently just a minority Sunni sectarian resistance in favour of a return of Sunni hegemony, bolstered heavily by foreign Sunni religious extremists. As I said before, this time next year you may be right and armed resistance may again have broken out in Shia areas, but at present this is not the case.

I considered it a statement in form of a question. Why dont you put up the list of insurgent casualties in province X you also asked (inference - there were insurgent casualties in province X); why dont you put a list of all northern and southern provinces where there were NO coalition casualties last month was another of your demands/questions (inference -- there were NO coalition casualties in northern/southern provinces).
My latter inference could have been wrong, so I asked you "Do you mean to say there were NO coalition casualties in ....?". You did not answer. I went forward and continued the discussion in the manner I understood the inference...
If you come one month later and make it clear that you did not mean to infer such a thing FINE, but stop poking my eyes out for that.

I think you were able to find out through the process of elimination, if you really wanted to find out... or search for yourself, or SAY it outright and stop using the indirect hint/question/pompous thing...

A fatality is a fatality. And how can you say I was misleading, when I provided links for you to read for yourself why those guys died + I did separate the list in Fatalities and KIA. (so where was I misleading?)

Well, why dont you spend your time to contribute to the accurate representation of facts by providing your side of the coin. Give us links, info, participate. Stop pontificating and ordering others to provide a full picture of the world, while saving your time for trifle ego arguments.

You're all talk. Carcoteala is the romanian term. This is a forum, not a news site. I present what I think is interesting, I provide link, I comment. I do what I can. What have you done besides mocking from the side?

Record, shame, me, my, me, my... Ego alert! If you want to know something, I did not start the personal attacks, but you, with the patronising way of judging others. Now when someone said something 1 month ago that dented your ego, you are wasting a huge amount of time and writing to reclaim your "position"... whatever that was. Maybe you are overreacting....?

I asked you the question, I offered you the opportunity. If you think thats false, suit yourself.

I did not object to anybody questioning my opinion. You on the other hand questioned my intent, my sources, and "agenda"... Thats not questioning an opinion, but a person.

Please get back to the initial topic.

Hi Imperialist,

Progress.

So now, rather than me allegedly having a history of offering purported facts without back-up that were later proved to be wrong, we are now reduced to a single example which you "considered a statement in form of a question".

However, you "considered" wrongly. Had I written, "There were no coalition fatalities in the provinces in northern and southern Iraq", you might have had a point.

But I didn't, did I? I wrote a straightforward question that asked why you didn't also list all the provinces in northern and southern Iraq where there had been no coalition casualties that month in order to provide some ballance. You can tell it's a question because it has a "?" at the end of it, in the usual manner.

Your "inference" was also wrong. Had I written, "Why don't you also list northern and southern Iraq, where all the provinces had seen no coalition fatalities", again you might have had a point. But again, I didn't, did I?

I apologise for missing your question intended to clarify my meaning. It was not done deliberately and has had the unintended effect of dropping you in a bit of a hole. However, I would suggest that this is also the result of your own impetuosity in choosing to interpret something you considered ambiguous in a particular way. Nor did you ask the clarification question several times, as you earlier claimed.

My main interest in this forum is Romanian military history. However, where I see unballanced views being advanced on other subjects I feel an obligation to intervene. Your contributions to this thread before I intervened read like a public relations exercise for the Iraqi insurgents. It is simply a list of their attacks. It gives no indication of their losses or that most of Iraq does not support them. I consider this to be deeply misleading. That is why in my very first post I asked you why you did not include reports of insurgent losses or a list of all the northern and southern Iraqi provinces where there were no coalition fatalities that month. You have still not explained why you were only offering a one-sided view of operations in Iraq. Would you care to do so now?

One can "contribute to the accurate representation of facts" in two ways. One can either put up facts oneself or correct errors and omissions. This is your thread and your choice of subject. Therefore I have largely (but not entirely) restricted myself to the latter. This may be irritating for you, but it is entirely legitimate.

This is not just a forum. It is a historical forum on which the accurate representation of facts and ballanced presentation are vital.

Have I mocked you? On occasion, yes. This is largely because of your congenital inability to answer a direct question. It is so predictable that I confess to being amused by it. I probably shouldn't have given in to this temptation, but I am weak.

By the way, the English version of Carcoteala is either "Windbag" or "All mouth and no trousers".

Nope. Ego is not an issue here. As I have said before on at least two occasions, if you can substantiate your accusation that I have a history of advancing purported facts without back-up that were later found to be wrong, then I can accept that, no problem. After all, what choice would I have? However, the fact of the matter is that you have not so far established even one incidence of this, let alone a history. My ego can withstand the shock of being proved wrong (it happens regularly). The question is can your ego admit to an over statement on this occasion?

Yup. You asked a question. However, you did not get a reply on that occasion. Thereafter you were entirely responsible for the course of action you took. A lack of reply doesn't give you freedom to make up your own reply. You chose an interpretation without any prompting from me, and got it wrong.

If you don't object to people questioning you, why do you so resolutely avoid answering my questions? In my last post I offered to answer any remaining questions I had missed, if you would reciprocate. You failed to respond. Would you care to now?

I have come to question rather more than your intent, sources and agenda during this discussion. I have doubts about the ballance of your approach, the accuracy of much of what you assert as fact and, most seriously, your honour and integrity.

Cheers,

Sidney Carcoteala.

Hi Victor,

I would be delighted to do so if Imperialist would either:

1) Substantiate his proposition to the effect that I have a history of providing facts without back-up that were later proved wrong,

or

2) Withdraw the proposition.

He may be right or he may be wrong, but at the moment all we have is an accusation that has neither been substantiated nor withdrawn, despite repeated requests.

It is vital to the good order of a forum that propositions of such a nature be either substantiated or withdrawn if challenged. Otherwise a host of minor slanders will spread across the forum.

Cheers,

Sid.

I have answered your question regarding that message. Lack of clarity (space for interpretation), lack of feedback or clarification.
I have already said twice - given your clarification one month later, and your denial of giving that inference to the question, you are free to say that message has lost its relevance in the face of the new "developments". I will not contradict your opinion.
You have the right to do that, though you do not have the right, as I said, to poke my eyes out for a message you have not reacted to at the time, nor for the following month. You have clarified your side now, I have accepted your clarification, what the hell do you want more.

The only conclusion I can think of is that you want to provoke the closing of this thread!!! So I ask you to stop posting huge off-topic messages. Your first post in this thread had nothing constructive in it. You came, you saw, you "civilised". If you really want to civilise the thread, please bring your own well-documented articles, links, comments, stop thrashing other people's activity.

So, the subject is closed for me, no more off-topic messages. If you want to say anything else send PMs, your views have already been recorded for posterity.

p.s. and seeing the large size of the messages you write I hope you'll use the same energy in enriching this thread (which by the way, is not "mine") with lists of insurgent fatalities

edit -- to see for yourself that I posted the link to the question in case several times on the forum, I give you only one example:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=274&st=75

My post dated Jun 18 2005, 05:02 PM on that thread. It gave a link to the thread with the question and my "erroneous" interpretation of your message. You avoided clarifying it then and there, while it was fresh. And I remember posting the same link in another part of the forum to obtain a clarification from you, but I cant find it now.
So I did try to draw your attention to the question/my interpretation, and yet you did not clarify it then. Just for the record. So when you ask me to answer your question I may very well adopt the same attitude and wait for 30 days or so, why should I hurry?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 14, 2005 09:45 pm

Hi Imperialist,

Still displaying a casual disregard for the facts, being evasive and disingenuous, I see.

In a post to a third party (Dragos) on Jun 29 2005 07:42AM you wrote:

"Sid has a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false".

As Victor and others were aware in advance, and you have been aware since my first post on my return, I went on 10 days holiday on that same day. I was therefore not aware that you had made that post and was not in a position to reply for that period.

However, I did reply immediately I got back on Jul 11 2005 04:47. As luck would have it, this was the first post after your post to Dragos. There is thus no month long delay involved. That is your transparently false attempt to obscure matters by conflating two separate issues.

In that post of Jul 11 2005 04:47 I asked you to justify your assertion that I had "a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false". You repeatedly failed to do so, ludicrously trying to contend that a question I asked you nearly a month before was an unbacked claim later proved to be false. It was neither.

I then asked you to withdraw the claim that I had "a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false". However, you wouldn't do that either.

All I want of you is either;

1) To substantiate your claim that I have "a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false",

or

2) Withdraw it.

Nope. I shall not be resorting to PMs to avoid embarrassing you further, because your original claim that I have "a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false" was in the public forum on this thread and it is only reasonable that you should address the issue in the same place. I have nothing to hide. Have you?

Cheers,

Sid.