Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 December 30
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 29 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 31 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
December 30
[edit]ISAF coalition
[edit]I've already asked this before, but nobody seemed to know the answer: Besides the usual "suspects" (USA, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark and Georgia Republic), which nations had their troops taking part in offensive operations in the Great War on Terror (offensive meaning actually going out into the field and fighting terrorists on their own ground, as opposed to waiting for the terrorists to attack)? Does anyone have this info at this time? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- International Security Assistance Force#Contributing nations goes into details of the various deployments of each nation's forces. Tevildo (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- But for most nations it doesn't mention any sort of offensive operations! And that's precisely what I want to know -- I don't want to know how many troops they have just kicking their heels on base, or chitchatting with the village elders, or training the Afghan troops (which is worse than useless, by doing this they're actually teaching them how to shoot our troops in the back), I want to know how many troops they have actually going out into the field and putting lead on target! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Purely for interest, who do you mean by "our" in this context? Please remember that en.Wikipedia is a global resource created and used by anglophone readers worldwide. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Russia, Saudi Arabia, ...? Dbfirs 20:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Our" = Americans and their allies! (And where did you get the notion that "our troops" could possibly mean Russian or Saudi troops, given that the Russians have no troops in Afghanistan at all, and the Saudi troops are fighting for the other side???) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't, but you originally asked: "which nations had their troops ... fighting terrorists on their own ground?" Dbfirs 09:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I meant fighting terrorists on the terrorists' own ground -- but even as you understood the question, Russia would indeed be a correct answer (Chechnya, Moscow theater crisis, Beslan, etc.), but Saudi would not because the Saudis are fighting together with the terrorists (see the "missing chapter" of the 9/11 commission report)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on your viewpoint and your definition of "terrorist". The Saudis have intervened in several conflicts. Dbfirs 13:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes and by many definitions (including each others!), both the US and Russia have also fought on the side of terrorists. So the fact that Saudis may have also fought together with terrorists doesn't explain the distinction, all 3 have fought besides/together with and against terrorists. Incidentally, how are we supposed to see something which is missing? Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Definition of terrorist, as per the Authorization for Use of Military Force: "those nations, organizations, or persons [which] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" -- which means that the Saudis are terrorists, whereas the USA and (to my knowledge) Russia are not! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's an exceedingly narrow definition, and certainly not one that I would use. The OED definition is "A person who uses violent and intimidating methods in the pursuit of political aims". Dbfirs 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is the operative definition all the same, and for the purposes of this question (as indeed for the purposes of US foreign policy) it is the definition to be used -- like it or not! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you seriously think US foreign policy only considers terrorists people involved in September 11 in some way, you have even more problems then I assumed when writing by comment below. That is of course only the definition relating to the specific authorisation of force. Since you're so nuts about Brits and Americans, US fairly obviously considers various people relating to the 7-7 attacks or the Boston bombing as terrorists despite the fact most or all of then don't fit within that definition. And funnily enough, nor do most Taliban troops by now, and of course Iraqis by and large never did. Anyway just to re-affirm what I said below, definitely stay away from answering any question. P.S. The question was original about the war on terror but you then later started talking about all terrorists rather than just terrorists fought as part of the war on terror, although in practice the US never even restricted themselves to that definition even within the war on terror anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the terrorists who did the 7/7 attacks and the Boston bombings DO fit within the definition above, as do ALL Taliban -- they are members and/or allies of Al-Qaida, which makes them responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence that most of the people involved in the 7/7 attacks were "nations, organizations, or persons [which] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Nor for modern day Taliban. Regardless of whether you want to call them members of allies of Al-Qaeda which I won't address since it's ultimately a moot point. The definition doesn't talk about members or allies. So these members or allies would either need to have planned, authorised, commited or aided the attacks, or harboured the organisations or persons. For people who were members of Al-Qaeda before the attack, perhaps the claim could be made they aided etc. Likewise people who harboured any such people. But simply being part of the Taliban or carrying out a later terrorist attack when you weren't associated with Al-Qaeda and didn't actual harbour any such people doesn't mean you've aided the attacks. You can't aid an attack which has already happened. You could harbour, but the idea the Boston or London bombers harboured anyone associated is silly. Nowadays of course, the Taliban who always had a strained relationship with Al-Qaeda (Taliban#al-Qaeda) have difficulty harbouring anyone, and Al-Qaeda has largely disperse to Pakistan and other places so even if the argument is made they were harboured at the time, it's clearly no longer true. Presuming the conflict doesn't end as the years grow on, we're going to get more and more Taliban who weren't even born when September 11 happened further demonstrating how silly the notion is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- WRONG -- the definition says that ORGANIZATIONS as well as persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks or harbored the 9/11 attackers are terrorists! And this means that the ENTIRE Al-Qaida (as well as any affiliates or splinter groups thereof), as the ORGANIZATION which committed the 9/11 attacks, is guilty of them -- and so is the ENTIRE Taliban, as the ORGANIZATION which harbored Al-Qaida! So yes, simply being part of the Taliban or Al-Qaida DOES make you guilty of the 9/11 attacks as per the Authorization, and therefore a terrorist by the definition given therein! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well for starters the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not two single organisations. More to the point regardless of whether the entire Taliban of al-Qaeda are terrorist organisations, the question is whether the specific people were terrorists. Maybe even more relevant, this whole discussion is starting to detract from my primary point. Namely, even if you want to somehow magically turn anyone with any minor association with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (which would almost definitely end up including the US and Russia anyway) into terrorists, your definition still precludes stuff the US would consider terrorism. For example, if a 15 year old who hates Al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc with a passion hijacks an aeroplane right now and crashes it into Trump Tower because they think Trump is the next Hitler and anyone around him are Nazis, you can be sure the US is going to consider them a terrorist even though there's no way even under the most loose reading of the above definition that such a person fits. So no, your definition clearly does not include everyone the US considers a terrorist, no matter how losely you read. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong again -- the question was NEVER solely about whether the "specific people" were terrorists, because the Authorization DOES NOT talk about only "the specific people" but about NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR PERSONS! So it CLEARLY defines the ENTIRE Al-Qaida and Taliban, and therefore ALL of their members, as terrorists, REGARDLESS of whether they were the "specific people" involved in the 9/11 attacks! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- But no where in that definition does it say all members are terrorists. It simply says the organisation or nation is terrorist or a person is terrorist if they fit that definition. The only people it defines as terrorists are those specified, not members of the organisation. It does not say anywhere that members of a terrorist organisation are automatically terrorists themselves. At most you could call them members of a terrorist organisation under that definition and since you're claiming that definition is all that matters, you cannot rely on anything else to claim they are terrorists because they are members of a terrorist organisation And no where does it even define members. Without a definition of membership, I could say you are a member of some terrorist organisation under the earlier definition and since you are saying that anyone who is a member is a terrorist, this means you are a terrorist. Even if you restrict it to someone the US has defined as a member, we can be certain that the US has not explicitly defined many people who belong to the Taliban as members. It's difficult to define someone as a member when you don't know who they are and none of your people have ever seen them. In any case you're still missing the forest from the trees. The definition clearly is not everyone the US considers terrorist, no matter how losely you read it because it's trivial to come up with people the US would consider terrorist who don't fit that definition. (Well unless you allow the US to define someone as a member of an organisation they hate with a passion.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you belong to a terrorist organization, then by definition you ARE a terrorist -- this doesn't HAVE to be spelled out specifically, because it's common sense! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- But no where in that definition does it say all members are terrorists. It simply says the organisation or nation is terrorist or a person is terrorist if they fit that definition. The only people it defines as terrorists are those specified, not members of the organisation. It does not say anywhere that members of a terrorist organisation are automatically terrorists themselves. At most you could call them members of a terrorist organisation under that definition and since you're claiming that definition is all that matters, you cannot rely on anything else to claim they are terrorists because they are members of a terrorist organisation And no where does it even define members. Without a definition of membership, I could say you are a member of some terrorist organisation under the earlier definition and since you are saying that anyone who is a member is a terrorist, this means you are a terrorist. Even if you restrict it to someone the US has defined as a member, we can be certain that the US has not explicitly defined many people who belong to the Taliban as members. It's difficult to define someone as a member when you don't know who they are and none of your people have ever seen them. In any case you're still missing the forest from the trees. The definition clearly is not everyone the US considers terrorist, no matter how losely you read it because it's trivial to come up with people the US would consider terrorist who don't fit that definition. (Well unless you allow the US to define someone as a member of an organisation they hate with a passion.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong again -- the question was NEVER solely about whether the "specific people" were terrorists, because the Authorization DOES NOT talk about only "the specific people" but about NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR PERSONS! So it CLEARLY defines the ENTIRE Al-Qaida and Taliban, and therefore ALL of their members, as terrorists, REGARDLESS of whether they were the "specific people" involved in the 9/11 attacks! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well for starters the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not two single organisations. More to the point regardless of whether the entire Taliban of al-Qaeda are terrorist organisations, the question is whether the specific people were terrorists. Maybe even more relevant, this whole discussion is starting to detract from my primary point. Namely, even if you want to somehow magically turn anyone with any minor association with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (which would almost definitely end up including the US and Russia anyway) into terrorists, your definition still precludes stuff the US would consider terrorism. For example, if a 15 year old who hates Al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc with a passion hijacks an aeroplane right now and crashes it into Trump Tower because they think Trump is the next Hitler and anyone around him are Nazis, you can be sure the US is going to consider them a terrorist even though there's no way even under the most loose reading of the above definition that such a person fits. So no, your definition clearly does not include everyone the US considers a terrorist, no matter how losely you read. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- WRONG -- the definition says that ORGANIZATIONS as well as persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks or harbored the 9/11 attackers are terrorists! And this means that the ENTIRE Al-Qaida (as well as any affiliates or splinter groups thereof), as the ORGANIZATION which committed the 9/11 attacks, is guilty of them -- and so is the ENTIRE Taliban, as the ORGANIZATION which harbored Al-Qaida! So yes, simply being part of the Taliban or Al-Qaida DOES make you guilty of the 9/11 attacks as per the Authorization, and therefore a terrorist by the definition given therein! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence that most of the people involved in the 7/7 attacks were "nations, organizations, or persons [which] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Nor for modern day Taliban. Regardless of whether you want to call them members of allies of Al-Qaeda which I won't address since it's ultimately a moot point. The definition doesn't talk about members or allies. So these members or allies would either need to have planned, authorised, commited or aided the attacks, or harboured the organisations or persons. For people who were members of Al-Qaeda before the attack, perhaps the claim could be made they aided etc. Likewise people who harboured any such people. But simply being part of the Taliban or carrying out a later terrorist attack when you weren't associated with Al-Qaeda and didn't actual harbour any such people doesn't mean you've aided the attacks. You can't aid an attack which has already happened. You could harbour, but the idea the Boston or London bombers harboured anyone associated is silly. Nowadays of course, the Taliban who always had a strained relationship with Al-Qaeda (Taliban#al-Qaeda) have difficulty harbouring anyone, and Al-Qaeda has largely disperse to Pakistan and other places so even if the argument is made they were harboured at the time, it's clearly no longer true. Presuming the conflict doesn't end as the years grow on, we're going to get more and more Taliban who weren't even born when September 11 happened further demonstrating how silly the notion is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the terrorists who did the 7/7 attacks and the Boston bombings DO fit within the definition above, as do ALL Taliban -- they are members and/or allies of Al-Qaida, which makes them responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you seriously think US foreign policy only considers terrorists people involved in September 11 in some way, you have even more problems then I assumed when writing by comment below. That is of course only the definition relating to the specific authorisation of force. Since you're so nuts about Brits and Americans, US fairly obviously considers various people relating to the 7-7 attacks or the Boston bombing as terrorists despite the fact most or all of then don't fit within that definition. And funnily enough, nor do most Taliban troops by now, and of course Iraqis by and large never did. Anyway just to re-affirm what I said below, definitely stay away from answering any question. P.S. The question was original about the war on terror but you then later started talking about all terrorists rather than just terrorists fought as part of the war on terror, although in practice the US never even restricted themselves to that definition even within the war on terror anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is the operative definition all the same, and for the purposes of this question (as indeed for the purposes of US foreign policy) it is the definition to be used -- like it or not! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's an exceedingly narrow definition, and certainly not one that I would use. The OED definition is "A person who uses violent and intimidating methods in the pursuit of political aims". Dbfirs 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Definition of terrorist, as per the Authorization for Use of Military Force: "those nations, organizations, or persons [which] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" -- which means that the Saudis are terrorists, whereas the USA and (to my knowledge) Russia are not! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes and by many definitions (including each others!), both the US and Russia have also fought on the side of terrorists. So the fact that Saudis may have also fought together with terrorists doesn't explain the distinction, all 3 have fought besides/together with and against terrorists. Incidentally, how are we supposed to see something which is missing? Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on your viewpoint and your definition of "terrorist". The Saudis have intervened in several conflicts. Dbfirs 13:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I meant fighting terrorists on the terrorists' own ground -- but even as you understood the question, Russia would indeed be a correct answer (Chechnya, Moscow theater crisis, Beslan, etc.), but Saudi would not because the Saudis are fighting together with the terrorists (see the "missing chapter" of the 9/11 commission report)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't, but you originally asked: "which nations had their troops ... fighting terrorists on their own ground?" Dbfirs 09:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Our" = Americans and their allies! (And where did you get the notion that "our troops" could possibly mean Russian or Saudi troops, given that the Russians have no troops in Afghanistan at all, and the Saudi troops are fighting for the other side???) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Russia, Saudi Arabia, ...? Dbfirs 20:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Purely for interest, who do you mean by "our" in this context? Please remember that en.Wikipedia is a global resource created and used by anglophone readers worldwide. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- But for most nations it doesn't mention any sort of offensive operations! And that's precisely what I want to know -- I don't want to know how many troops they have just kicking their heels on base, or chitchatting with the village elders, or training the Afghan troops (which is worse than useless, by doing this they're actually teaching them how to shoot our troops in the back), I want to know how many troops they have actually going out into the field and putting lead on target! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think the IPv6 IP must be referring to Taliban troops being shot in the back although I suspect more were shot in there'd front. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong -- I was referring to Afghan troops shooting Americans (as well as our British friends) in the back in so-called green-on-blue "accidents"! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- We British consider Americans our brothers, not our friends. After all, you choose your friends :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- You realise I was being facetious right? Anyway green on blue incidents generally involve people shooting those who were training them. Therefore they wouldn't be shooting British or Americans unless these were there trainers. (Of course there may be multiple trainers, or they may switch.) So other than the fact that Afghan troops are much more likely to shoot Taliban troops than they are Brits or Americans, logically according to your latest definition, "our troops" actually refers mostly to the trainers you're complaining about whatever their nationality, rather than explicitly Brits or Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- [citation needed] for your claim that the Afghans are "much more likely to shoot Taliban troops than Brits or Americans" 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume you're being facetious as well? If you are being serious, can you avoid answering any questions relating to well probably all things relating to any war, or terrorism or the Middle East or Afghanistan. Well maybe just avoid answering any question. But anyway NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan#Green-on-blue attacks gives an estimate of 80 attacks from 2008-2013. The source used seems to have been updated [1] and in any case it gives the more important figures of deaths, 2015 – 4, 2014 – 4, 2013 – 14, 2012 – 61, 2011 – 35, 2010 – 16, 2009 – 12, 2008 – 2. For a total of 148 people killed from 2008-2015.
If you seriously believe that Afghan troops have killed less than 148 Taliban troops in that period, this even further re-enforces my earlier request, but anyway [2] says "Afghan army and police killed over 720 Taliban insurgents in January-February 2014, according to official news releases compiled by VOA Dari Service".
Actually this [3] source about the 2012 peak in such attacks gives an unsurprising figure. At the time in 2012, 45 soldiers had been killed in such green on blue attacks, but they'd killed 53 of their fellow Afghan soldiers or police. And 2012 was an unusual year, there's a fair chance in more normal years the proportions are much more biased in favour of their fellow troops because there's a lot more of them and they're easier to kill and the increased interactions give much more room for conflict. Plus there's reason to believe the 53 figure is much more of an underestimate than the 45, since such attacks are far more likely to be missed or ignored, misclassified etc.
To be fair, these are specifically green on blue attacks, some Afghan troops etc may abandon their postings after training and join the Taliban etc although that wasn't what I said anyway. It's also possible there are a few unaccounted although if you read the LWJ, it's clear that the main problem is attacks without casulties. They also use a very wide definition of green on blue. So even if there are any missed it can't be many.
Maybe the most relevant point is that per Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, there have been 3407 deaths (of 2724 Americans and Brits) until 1 October 2015. So even if we somehow blame all the deaths on Afghan troops (even though I think it was clear I was referring to those part of the internationally recognised Afghan government rather than Taliban troops who actually had no connection), well.... If you really think Afghan troops killed 700 or so Taliban troops in a 2 month period but fewer than 3400 overall, I can't be bothered digging up a source demonstrating this is nonsense. (I'm sure there are sources somewhere with estimates, but I didn't come across any in a quick search. Unsurprisingly the general concentration is on the number killed rather than the number killed by Afghans instead of coalition ones.)
I would note that War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) gives 25500-45500 Taliban killed so you're basically claiming Afghan troops killed less than 13.5% of the total dead, despite losing 21,950 (okay some would be to friendly fire from either coalition troops or their fellow Afghan troops not to Taliban). Note that even if you include contractor deaths it still only is slightly more than 5000. Sure the Afghan army etc have problems, but if you can't see how ridicilous is it to think they killed less than 3407 or even 5100, well I don't think any sources are going to help anyway.
P.S. About the earlier source on deaths from green-on-blue note that 2016 has 2 until May 7. Also it currently says there have been 1508 casulties but there's no explanation for why that figure so widely diverges from the per year figure. And that figure is about half of the total number killed as per earlier despite the fact the LWJ source says the peak in percentage was about 15%. So I think we can safely assume a typo. Perhaps when they updated it from 148 until 2015 to 150 to 2016, they didn't delete the 8. I've emailed them to correct it.
Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- And what proof do you have for your claim that it's "nonsense" that the Afghan troops killed less than 13.5% of the Taliban dead??? Or should I assume that you "can't be bothered to dig up a source" (despite the VERY POINT of this reference desk being to SUPPLY REFERENCES) because you DON'T HAVE a source??? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- As for your source in VOA News, have you considered the possibility that the Afghan government could be lying about the kill count (even to the point of making up the figures from thin air) in order to inflate the importance of the Afghan troops (in order to ensure continued funding for them, either to steal the money or in the hope of using the troops against us at a later date)??? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except, I've already dug up plenty of quality references. The fact that you reject them doesn't mean they weren't provided and actually I already explained why I couldn't be bothered. Because I correctly predicted you were just going to reject any references which conflict with you your ridiculous preconceived notions, which appears to be based on the insane idea there's some super conspiracy involving nearly every Afghan troop or politican to eventually kill Americans etc, despite the fact that they know they and their fellow citizens (including sometimes the ones they care about given the incredibly sectarian nature) are being killed by Taliban. And that many of the higher people are brutal warlords who stand to significantly lose out of the Taliban gain control. In other words, you have zero understanding of human nature of the conflict there, and are coming up with stuff even the majority of extremely conservatives warmongers in the US are going to reject. Meanwhile you've provided zero evidence for any of your ridicilous claims or questions. Of course the 13.5% is not actually relevant to what I said. I only brought it up to demonstrate who ridicilous your claims were. Only the 148 figure matters. Which means it's only 0.59%. More to the point it's probably not that hard to find more than 148 deaths of Taliban from Afghan troops witnessed by coalition troops. Except that I'm sure if anyone were to find them you'd say the coalition troop was lying, or the person killed was probably not Taliban or some other bullcrap. So yes this is a reference desk. But people making ridicilous claims are expected to provided references too. Especially when they are rejected those that have been provided. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that you HAVEN'T dug up "plenty of quality references" -- you've dug up TWO which are from reliable sources BUT which DO NOT directly say how many Taliban the Afghan troops killed, and one which relies completely on the word of the Afghan government and so CANNOT be considered a reliable source for the reasons given above! And as for the "human nature of the conflict there", I have a MUCH better understanding of it than you do -- it's first and foremost a conflict between Islam and the "infidels", so it's actually VERY likely that most Afghan troops and politicians DO want to kill Americans! So, last but not least -- since you say that it's "not that hard to find more than 148 deaths of Taliban from Afghan troops witnessed by coalition troops", then go find it (or, alternatively, find ANY source for Taliban deaths from Afghan troops which comes from WESTERN SOURCES ONLY and not from the lying Afghans) and THEN I'll believe what you said! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that I provided 3 links to external sources in my reply, all of which are WP:RS as far as wikipedia is concerned. I also provided links to 3 articles, all of which provided sources for the claims I was relying. As I said above, people making their claims are expected to source them. You've provided zero. I've provided sources for most of that I said, except where I made it clear I wasn't going to bother because I was sure you'd reject it. Anyway, regardless of what you want to say the war is about, the fact remains the majority of people killed in the war have been Afghans by their fellow Afghans, so it's clear there's no major conspiracy like you're talking about nor is there any reason why everyone would want to have an over-reaching conspiracy with the people who are killing them. And it's also clear that many of the warlords are more interested in money and power than they are in such a conspiracy. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that with the exception of the VOA source (which uses stats originating with the Afghan government) they do NOT give any stats specifically for the number of Taliban killed by Afghan troops! (In other words, you have proved HALF of your claim -- that half which relates to the number of "green-on-blue" killings -- but you have NOT proved the OTHER half, that the number of Taliban killed by Afghan troops exceeds this number!) Also, [citation needed] for your claim that the warlords are "more interested in money and power" than in killing infidels2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that I made a lot more claims than you are mentioning most of which were sourced. (E.g. of those you are missing include the number of Taliban troops killed in total, the number of Afghanistan troops killed in total, the number of Afghanistan troops killed by their fellow Afghanistan troops in 2012.) So it's clearly not half. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- The number of Taliban killed in total and the number of Afghan troops killed in total have NO RELEVANCE to the two numbers I requested that you cite -- the number of coalition troops killed by Afghan troops vs. the number of Taliban killed by the same Afghan troops! So yes, you've proved PRECISELY HALF of your claim! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- But whether ot not it had any relevance to any request is besides the point. I simply said I provided references to most of what I've said not whether they were relevant to what you asked. I've made multiple claims in this thread. If you think I only made one claim, I guessing you've missed most of what I've said. As for warlords, some basic reading [4] Warlord#Afghanistan 2 [5] [6] [7] [8] Taliban's rise to power. Maybe also [9] [10] [11] Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your original claim was that the Afghan troops killed more Taliban than they killed coalition troops -- and THAT is the claim we're discussing right now! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I've read the latest batch of sources you linked (about the warlords, that is), and I'm starting to wonder whether YOU have read some of them before posting -- specifically, the MIT source actually shows that you are wrong and I am right on what makes the warlords tick (i.e. it says that they are motivated mainly by ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY!) As for the CFR/Defense One sources, I wouldn't put too much trust in them, given that the Defense One article (Defense One being an affiliate of CFR/Foreign Policy) actually starts out with the premise that we need to make a negotiated peace with the Taliban (when in fact President Bush declared that the only acceptable outcome is the Taliban's complete destruction!) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- But whether ot not it had any relevance to any request is besides the point. I simply said I provided references to most of what I've said not whether they were relevant to what you asked. I've made multiple claims in this thread. If you think I only made one claim, I guessing you've missed most of what I've said. As for warlords, some basic reading [4] Warlord#Afghanistan 2 [5] [6] [7] [8] Taliban's rise to power. Maybe also [9] [10] [11] Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- The number of Taliban killed in total and the number of Afghan troops killed in total have NO RELEVANCE to the two numbers I requested that you cite -- the number of coalition troops killed by Afghan troops vs. the number of Taliban killed by the same Afghan troops! So yes, you've proved PRECISELY HALF of your claim! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that I made a lot more claims than you are mentioning most of which were sourced. (E.g. of those you are missing include the number of Taliban troops killed in total, the number of Afghanistan troops killed in total, the number of Afghanistan troops killed by their fellow Afghanistan troops in 2012.) So it's clearly not half. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that with the exception of the VOA source (which uses stats originating with the Afghan government) they do NOT give any stats specifically for the number of Taliban killed by Afghan troops! (In other words, you have proved HALF of your claim -- that half which relates to the number of "green-on-blue" killings -- but you have NOT proved the OTHER half, that the number of Taliban killed by Afghan troops exceeds this number!) Also, [citation needed] for your claim that the warlords are "more interested in money and power" than in killing infidels2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that I provided 3 links to external sources in my reply, all of which are WP:RS as far as wikipedia is concerned. I also provided links to 3 articles, all of which provided sources for the claims I was relying. As I said above, people making their claims are expected to source them. You've provided zero. I've provided sources for most of that I said, except where I made it clear I wasn't going to bother because I was sure you'd reject it. Anyway, regardless of what you want to say the war is about, the fact remains the majority of people killed in the war have been Afghans by their fellow Afghans, so it's clear there's no major conspiracy like you're talking about nor is there any reason why everyone would want to have an over-reaching conspiracy with the people who are killing them. And it's also clear that many of the warlords are more interested in money and power than they are in such a conspiracy. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that you HAVEN'T dug up "plenty of quality references" -- you've dug up TWO which are from reliable sources BUT which DO NOT directly say how many Taliban the Afghan troops killed, and one which relies completely on the word of the Afghan government and so CANNOT be considered a reliable source for the reasons given above! And as for the "human nature of the conflict there", I have a MUCH better understanding of it than you do -- it's first and foremost a conflict between Islam and the "infidels", so it's actually VERY likely that most Afghan troops and politicians DO want to kill Americans! So, last but not least -- since you say that it's "not that hard to find more than 148 deaths of Taliban from Afghan troops witnessed by coalition troops", then go find it (or, alternatively, find ANY source for Taliban deaths from Afghan troops which comes from WESTERN SOURCES ONLY and not from the lying Afghans) and THEN I'll believe what you said! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except, I've already dug up plenty of quality references. The fact that you reject them doesn't mean they weren't provided and actually I already explained why I couldn't be bothered. Because I correctly predicted you were just going to reject any references which conflict with you your ridiculous preconceived notions, which appears to be based on the insane idea there's some super conspiracy involving nearly every Afghan troop or politican to eventually kill Americans etc, despite the fact that they know they and their fellow citizens (including sometimes the ones they care about given the incredibly sectarian nature) are being killed by Taliban. And that many of the higher people are brutal warlords who stand to significantly lose out of the Taliban gain control. In other words, you have zero understanding of human nature of the conflict there, and are coming up with stuff even the majority of extremely conservatives warmongers in the US are going to reject. Meanwhile you've provided zero evidence for any of your ridicilous claims or questions. Of course the 13.5% is not actually relevant to what I said. I only brought it up to demonstrate who ridicilous your claims were. Only the 148 figure matters. Which means it's only 0.59%. More to the point it's probably not that hard to find more than 148 deaths of Taliban from Afghan troops witnessed by coalition troops. Except that I'm sure if anyone were to find them you'd say the coalition troop was lying, or the person killed was probably not Taliban or some other bullcrap. So yes this is a reference desk. But people making ridicilous claims are expected to provided references too. Especially when they are rejected those that have been provided. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- [citation needed] for your claim that the Afghans are "much more likely to shoot Taliban troops than Brits or Americans" 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong -- I was referring to Afghan troops shooting Americans (as well as our British friends) in the back in so-called green-on-blue "accidents"! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think the IPv6 IP must be referring to Taliban troops being shot in the back although I suspect more were shot in there'd front. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are many foreign (US, European) advisers/trainers embedded with the Afghan forces, who amongst other things will be checking the reported kill numbers and relaying them to their respective commands and governments with such amendments as prove necessary. Pprofessional military personnel are not naive, and the politicians in ultimate charge will rely on such intelligence reports rather than journalists' stories and the Afghan authorities public claims. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- And you seriously believe Afghan troops have killed less than 148 Taliban since 2008 or 0.59% of those killed and no one has considered this a problem enough for a major shakeup? More relevant, does this mean you are promising not to reject a source based on such numbers, or are you going to to say "it's a third party report of these reports" or "they made a mistake in their compilation" or some other bullshit if such a source is actually provided? Nil Einne (talk)
- Yes, it means I promise not to reject a source which is based on stats from WESTERN sources (NOT originating from the Afghan government) AND which directly addresses the question of Taliban deaths by Afghan troops! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- And you seriously believe Afghan troops have killed less than 148 Taliban since 2008 or 0.59% of those killed and no one has considered this a problem enough for a major shakeup? More relevant, does this mean you are promising not to reject a source based on such numbers, or are you going to to say "it's a third party report of these reports" or "they made a mistake in their compilation" or some other bullshit if such a source is actually provided? Nil Einne (talk)
- There are many foreign (US, European) advisers/trainers embedded with the Afghan forces, who amongst other things will be checking the reported kill numbers and relaying them to their respective commands and governments with such amendments as prove necessary. Pprofessional military personnel are not naive, and the politicians in ultimate charge will rely on such intelligence reports rather than journalists' stories and the Afghan authorities public claims. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well I had another quick look but it's probably not going to be easy. As one of the earlier sources notes, the coalition doesn't even publish how many Taliban troops they kill so by nature such reports would have to be incredibly third party. Of course, you're not only accusing the Afghan government of lying to such an extent that they haven't even killed 148 people but the Taliban [12]. And this is for stuff for internal consumption too [13] [14] [15] [16] (I'm not denying that such reports could be lies, but the reasons you gave for them are silly). Meanwhile in all the reports that do exist about their troop effectiveness [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], no one source thought to mention, "Incidentally for all the problems we have with counting numbers and otherwise determing effectiveness, throughout all these years we're not even sure they killed 200 Taliban soldiers. Still let's worry about other still like how many troops they even have, when whatever the number they're so bad they can't killed more than 200 people but we won't mention that. Meanwhile they're making up media reports about how many people they are killing despite the fact they must know we're not even convinced they killed 200 people, and we never actually comment on numbers killed anyway. And although they haven't even killed 200, they've lost thousands. And actually that means inflating their number of active troops to 300k is makes them look worse but still they do it." And yes, as you saw in my sources, this includes places like Breitbart. Actually one of my earlier sources [22] didn't think to mention something similar i.e. they can't even kill 200 Taliban troops, but hey let's consider only other stuff in deciding if they can resist the Taliban. Meanwhile those who are looking at the numbers [23] are saying that 7000+ in one year was likely too low. But oh, that's the UN so I'm sure they're wrong. (Actually per one of the earlier sources, I can't remember which one and also logic, it's likely the Afghanistan government has executed more than 148 Taliban in that time, although it's true there aren't really killed by Afghan troops per se.) As I mentioned earlier, probably the easiest thing to do is find reports from US and other soldier reportins kills, but hunting around the blogs of soldier, books etc shouldn't be hard but will take time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'll wait for you to find the sources. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well I had another quick look but it's probably not going to be easy. As one of the earlier sources notes, the coalition doesn't even publish how many Taliban troops they kill so by nature such reports would have to be incredibly third party. Of course, you're not only accusing the Afghan government of lying to such an extent that they haven't even killed 148 people but the Taliban [12]. And this is for stuff for internal consumption too [13] [14] [15] [16] (I'm not denying that such reports could be lies, but the reasons you gave for them are silly). Meanwhile in all the reports that do exist about their troop effectiveness [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], no one source thought to mention, "Incidentally for all the problems we have with counting numbers and otherwise determing effectiveness, throughout all these years we're not even sure they killed 200 Taliban soldiers. Still let's worry about other still like how many troops they even have, when whatever the number they're so bad they can't killed more than 200 people but we won't mention that. Meanwhile they're making up media reports about how many people they are killing despite the fact they must know we're not even convinced they killed 200 people, and we never actually comment on numbers killed anyway. And although they haven't even killed 200, they've lost thousands. And actually that means inflating their number of active troops to 300k is makes them look worse but still they do it." And yes, as you saw in my sources, this includes places like Breitbart. Actually one of my earlier sources [22] didn't think to mention something similar i.e. they can't even kill 200 Taliban troops, but hey let's consider only other stuff in deciding if they can resist the Taliban. Meanwhile those who are looking at the numbers [23] are saying that 7000+ in one year was likely too low. But oh, that's the UN so I'm sure they're wrong. (Actually per one of the earlier sources, I can't remember which one and also logic, it's likely the Afghanistan government has executed more than 148 Taliban in that time, although it's true there aren't really killed by Afghan troops per se.) As I mentioned earlier, probably the easiest thing to do is find reports from US and other soldier reportins kills, but hunting around the blogs of soldier, books etc shouldn't be hard but will take time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- (EC) P.S. I forgot to mention what I came back to mention namely that I'm sure some former Afghan troops may have killed American or Brits outside Afghanistan and the number above only included those killed in Afghanistan. Still, to believe this number is going to significantly increase the 3400/5000 figure is just more of the ridiculousless that started this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- [un-indent] Ooof... OK, now that we've more-or-less resolved the tangents re. the definition of terrorists and the claim regarding the uselessness of training Afghan troops, let's get back to the original question: Does anyone happen to know which countries (besides the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark and Georgia Republic) have (or had in the past) their troops actively seeking out and attacking terrorists in the course of the Great War on Terror, particularly in Afghanistan? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)