Pakistani PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids - Polidicks

You're still using claims that you cannot prove as the truth. I'm making the point about how this is an undesirable situation. If you believe what they say, they're shaping the way you think and act about certain things. This isn't great when you can't prove their claims are true. You're being potentially exploited if you have this blind faith in things that people tell you. It's like if I were to visit a drug dealer regularly, and this guy has told me he won't jack me, and I've heard from people who I may or may not have known were buddies with him that he doesn't jack people. Your logic will lead you to have blind faith in the fact that he won't jack you. This made you vulnerable, because at any point the dealer can jack you, and you'd never be prepared for it. You didn't predict it, because he has a history of being legit, and some sources promote this "fact". Your logic would argue mine and say that I need proof that the dealer might jack me, but that you don't need evidence that what you think about him is correct. Seriously, if everyone thinks that way, then anyone could use this weakness against people.

Oh world, you so crazy.

More like everyone thinks that guy is pretty good and reliable except for one guy you met in the street shouting abuses saying he can't be trusted. Seriously, you're talking shit. There's not just one source for these kind of things and they can be verified.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29737204]More like everyone thinks that guy is pretty good and reliable except for one guy you met in the street shouting abuses saying he can't be trusted. Seriously, you're talking shit. There's not just one source for these kind of things and they can be verified.[/QUOTE] It's not talking shit. You don't think you need proof that the evidence you're given backing up a claim is true?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737227]It's not talking shit. You don't think you need proof that the evidence you're given backing up a claim is true?[/QUOTE] Well even if I went there in person and saw it then you would dismiss it because I could be making shit up just as easily as them. I do however rely on the notion that if someone discovers a conflicting account that makes the other guy look bad, they will broadcast it as much as they can. People do that, Wikileaks and the Pentagon papers, but no-one really comes out with things like "Afghanistan doesn't exist". Of course that could all be part of their plan, put a few red herrings around. But then you have to believe that everyone who could provide an account is in on the secret and the world is based around you. Wake up from the Matrix Neo.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733364]It is my opinion that any "best" classification is fundamentally misguided. Militaries all over the world are tailored to their specific national requirements. If you have, say, an obsession over air power and technology, you'll favor militaries that rely on it extensively, and punish those that don't. You'll just end up with a biased list.[/QUOTE] This guy knows what he's talking about. [QUOTE=yawmwen;29733371]i would assume everything from number of active personnel, number and quality of officers, number and quality of equipment, etc. for navy, army, and airforce[/QUOTE] This guy [B][I]doesn't[/I][/B], and looks like a blooming idiot as a result. For fuck's sake, at least use proper spelling and punctuation so you don't look like some six year old U.S. Army fanboy. :colbert:

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29737258]Well even if I went there in person and saw it then you would dismiss it because I could be making shit up just as easily as them. I do however rely on the notion that if someone discovers a conflicting account that makes the other guy look bad, they will broadcast it as much as they can. People do that, Wikileaks and the Pentagon papers, but no-one really comes out with things like "Afghanistan doesn't exist". Of course that could all be part of their plan, put a few red herrings around. But then you have to believe that everyone who could provide an account is in on the secret and the world is based around you. Wake up from the Matrix Neo.[/QUOTE] Stop wasting your time, the answer is a lot simpler than that. Like the situation with the dealer. You never suspected him to jack you, because of the same factors that convince you to believe things that you think is true without having seen real evidence. In that situation with the dealer, your logic would enable you to trust him, and thus ultimately get jacked. My logic would lead me to conclude that I cannot know the truth, that there is no proof that the evidence for why I won't get jacked is true, and so from then I would get myself out of that situation. Fuck the dealer, I should be able to know the truth, and see legitimate evidence that it is the truth. Otherwise, I'm position to get jacked whenever he wants.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737324]Stop wasting your time, the answer is a lot simpler than that. Like the situation with the dealer. You never suspected him to jack you, because of the same factors that convince you to believe things that you think is true without having seen real evidence. In that situation with the dealer, your logic would enable you to trust him, and thus ultimately get jacked. My logic would lead me to conclude that I cannot know the truth, that there is no proof that the evidence for why I won't get jacked is true, and so from then I would get myself out of that situation. Fuck the dealer, I should be able to know the truth, and see legitimate evidence that it is the truth. Otherwise, I'm position to get jacked whenever he wants.[/QUOTE] You seem to assume he will jack you, you don't know so he might just as easily be a good guy. The world isn't so concrete and everything can be fake, you just have to know when to believe something is real and when it isn't. No shame in being fooled, better than living in your world of uncertainly like a Schrodinger's cat. There is a level of trust and probability here. Every account changes the probability of something being true, trust helps determine how much it changes it. There is almost never 100% because any new account could change everything, then it's only logical to change your view. Until you can prove that everything is false or have an account that increases the probability of that conclusion being true, I think my view is more likely.

Yeah, but like I said, you become vulnerable. I could hunt humans if I liked, gaining their trust and acting positively towards them until I'm in position to exploit them in any way I like. Why do you want that to be a possibility? You let it become a possible outcome when you judge how accurate evidence is through stupid factors like history of credibility, how official it looks, or if someone of authority said it. And that is something no one has been able to disprove as a possibility that can easily happen.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737466]Yeah, but like I said, you become vulnerable. I could hunt humans if I liked, gaining their trust and acting positively towards them until I'm in position to exploit them in any way I like. Why do you want that to be a possibility?[/QUOTE] Because it's incredibly unlikely and the penalty for not getting close or trusting anyone is far worse. Risk-reward scenario, the chance that it happens is low and the reward of not getting close to a serial killer pales compared to not getting close to anyone.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29737487]Because it's incredibly unlikely and the penalty for not getting close or trusting anyone is far worse. Risk-reward scenario, the chance that it happens is low and the reward of not getting close to a serial killer pales compared to not getting close to anyone.[/QUOTE] So you agree that it's somewhat a flaw in humans? That if someone replicates the factors that enables you to trust them, they can leave you vulnerable in a certain way. Now that's not the only weakness that is known about humans. Some people know a whole lot about these things. Using them can enable you to effectively control the minds of people. There's ways to disguise these things, and make them go unnoticed. But they're still very powerful techniques.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737517]So you agree that it's somewhat a flaw in humans? That if someone replicates the factors that enables you to trust them, they can leave you vulnerable in a certain way. Now that's not the only weakness that is known about humans. Some people know a whole lot about these things. Using them can enable you to effectively control the minds of people. There's ways to disguise these things, and make them go unnoticed. But they're still very powerful techniques.[/QUOTE] You know there are plenty of things that can break this trust, like finding a bloody piece of clothing or not actually trusting them? Also I wouldn't trust a weakness, it can be exploited but there's a lot more good it can do. Really though, these things are not infallible and there is no way possible that someone is playing all these tricks on the populace with no-one finding a knife under the bed. You don't count because you're just saying he could be instead of he is.

What the fuck are you two talking about?

[QUOTE=Killuah;29737606]What the fuck are you two talking about?[/QUOTE] Whether it is better to live in an unsure reality and be open to risks or to hide in safety away from all uncertainty. Half-noble discussion, as long as we keep from the NWO stuff.

ITT: An insane conspiracy theorist troll and some guy who doesn't know how to not get trolled argue non-stop for four fucking hours about utterly mundane shit. Good entertainment though, makes me miss Lankist and his insanity. :munch:

Non-stop arguing only filling about a page, pretty tame really. I'm also enjoying this more than anything, intellectual sparring and I haven't had these discussions before.

Yeah, you guys don't know a whole lot about mind control. I could write a fucking book on how to do it. But that's useless, as the only people in the position to create the perfect, undetectable mind controlled slave is the government and their friends. Anyway, it's not really arguing, it's bringing attention to different possibilities, more specifically, ones that are easily achievable and can lead to world domination. Awesome. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] Off to work now though. Yep, working for a government regulated business. Providing them with tax dollars.

Hey everyone national sovereignty is stupid and we should raid anywhere we like without responsibility to anyone because our cock is bigger hurr hurr

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737043]I'm not bullshitting, I'm talking about a very possible situation that can easily take place. Read what I just added to my last post. I'm not claiming that this shit is true, I'm just saying it's true that it can happen easily.[/QUOTE] So what, you believe that out of the [B]enormous opposition[/B] to the war in Iraq, and to a less extent in Afghanistan, that a whole bunch of them could just [I]disappear[/I] without notice? Are you really that dense? [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;29738362]Hey everyone national sovereignty is stupid and we should raid anywhere we like without responsibility to anyone because our cock is bigger hurr hurr[/QUOTE] Look, we'd seen numerous occasions where the Pakistani government had purposefully deterred us (read: tipped off the terrorist) from finding terrorists in their country, after they had been working with us to find them. We had to do it without their consent, considering the value of the target. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29738131]Off to work now though. Yep, working for a government regulated business. Providing them with tax dollars.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's generally how jobs work. Also, I'd like to hear more about this mind control business. Unless you're talking about ads, in which case I'm not particularly influenced to believe things about the wars in the Middle East from Coca-Cola ads or the newest brand of Doritos. Don't take me for some blind USA supporter either, because that's just not true.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29730623]I wonder how much the Taliban paid him to say that.[/QUOTE] Everyone in Pakistan is on the Taliban payroll? They can barely afford shoes or the guns to kill things with. Of course, it's not a conspiracy when it supports the United States viewpoint. Get real, not everyone who directly opposes our blow-up-everyone-carrying-a-gun-in-the-middle-east campaign is a terrorist.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29738131]Yeah, you guys don't know a whole lot about mind control. I could write a fucking book on how to do it. But that's useless, as the only people in the position to create the perfect, undetectable mind controlled slave is the government and their friends. Anyway, it's not really arguing, it's bringing attention to different possibilities, more specifically, ones that are easily achievable and can lead to world domination. Awesome. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] Off to work now though. Yep, working for a government regulated business. Providing them with tax dollars.[/QUOTE] the man is trying to take over our minds [I]maaaaaannnnnn[/I]

[QUOTE=Zambies!;29731817]India do your thing. Get Pakistan to pull out of the war on terror, India to move in. India doesn't sponsor terrorism.[/QUOTE] India isn't interested in the War on Terror, because it isn't one.

Fuck you Pakistan. Stop being idiots

[QUOTE=GunFox;29732689]Seriously Pakistan? SERIOUSLY? Hi, we're the United States, we spend 150% of your GDP on our military alone and you just threatened us. In addition to this, our response to any provocation which claims American lives is responded to with insane levels of retribution. So if you were to go "full force" against a raid against a top terrorist leader, things would end so very very poorly for you. The best case scenario is that we invade and rename your country to "shitfuckistan"[/QUOTE] By full force they probably mean throwing a few fireworks at you.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29735732]I'd imagine they'd be more supportive of a conventional war with clear goals (e.g. the initial deposing of Saddam), and an actual threat to the US mainland, as opposed to the 7 years of faffing about and getting troops blown up by IEDs that followed. Thing is, though, they have absolutely ludicrous amounts of equipment due to the equally ludicrous amounts of money spent on their military (more than the next 3 largest combined iirc); the only other country that comes close is Russia, with China on the path to catching up. I know you're not fond of the technological advantage argument, but it does present hard limits to an enemy. If a SAM site's range is far less than that of the ordinance carried by a US warplane (I think it was in a Syria thread we discussed this; iirc the main mobile SAM system used by them has a missile range of 9km), then that's just fact that the SAM site is holding the shit end of the stick. The US military sure as hell isn't efficient or value-for-money, but throw enough money at something and you can just drown the enemy in bombs, bullets and other nasty fast-moving and pointy things. This speech by Hitler comes to mind: (not that i'm insinuating the US are Nazis) "And if the British Air Force drops two, three or four thousand kilos of bombs, then we will now drop 150,000, 180,000, 230,000, 300,000 or 400,000 kilos, or more, in one night. If they declare that they will attack our cities on a large scale, we will erase theirs!" The most significant limitations would be manpower and political willpower, but i'd imagine both would cease to be a problem in a significant conventional war (such as WW2)[/QUOTE] My point is not that third-world country B has the definitive ability to inflict a decisive defeat on the US, but this attitude that "we're the best since we beat the shit out of Iraq twice conventionally" is just going on the road to victory disease in conventional conflict. I refer you to these two articles: [url]http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/techy.htm[/url] [url]http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm[/url] And page 12 of this PDF: [url]http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p124201coll1&CISOPTR=1136&filename=1137.pdf[/url] Today's US Army is an effective stability and counterinsurgency force, but experience and training in combined arms operations against conventionally organized and equipped enemies, that's another story.

The influence people who consider themselves "Pakis" In the UK is massive. Any war with Pakistan would lead to a full revolt of millions of people, just because of heritage. No one can afford anoher war in the Middle-East. This is just going to pass like North Korea and Iran. Unnoticed.

And so begins the part of the thread where every post is a wall of text.

I wonder how much force they will have if we cut the billions of dollars we send them every year.

So we pay this country billion of dollars? For what? So the nukes to not fall into wrong hands? Come on.

this is pakistan we're talking about, does shooting fish in a bright red barrel mean anything?