- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Thirteenth century mentality + twentieth century Eastern European technology (AK series rifles) + no regard for human life and radicalism = self-erradication
Explain yourself
Thirteenth century mentality + twentieth century Eastern European technology (AK series rifles) + no regard for human life and radicalism = self-erradication
Someone saw that Indiana Jones movie one too many times. : Remember the scene where that huge Arab jumps in front of Indy with the sword, starts spinning it around in a big impressive display, and then Indy pulls out his gun and shoot him. <snicker> I love that scene.Too much waving shoes around in crowds and screaming Allah Akbar and too little sophisticated planning, intelligence and tactics.
Napalm said:Why Arabs lose wars?
Too much waving shoes around in crowds and screaming Allah Akbar and too little sophisticated planning, intelligence and tactics. Funny bunch those Arabs though. Thirteenth century mentality + twentieth century Eastern European technology (AK series rifles) + no regard for human life and radicalism = self-erradication.
Acorn said:Have a detailed and critical look at the events of 1973. Prepare a paper, and come back to us. Otherwise sod off.
Pieman said:As far as the comment on Arab tactics being unsophisticated, it would appear the current modern tactics the Arabs are using are pretty effective against the American forces. They are are not winning the war but they are certainly putting up a good fight, and making things pretty difficult to say the least.
Oh wait, I know, you must be talking about Fallujah! Right, where the number of foreign combatants killed has been only 10 times higher than the number of dead Americans. Ofcourse, FIBUA combat is supposed to produce 3-5 times as many casualties amongst the attackers....but I guess the Americans just got lucky.
C'mon, admit it, your statement was just plain silly
Acorn said:Have a detailed and critical look at the events of 1973. Prepare a paper, and come back to us. Otherwise sod off.
Acorn
Infanteer said:48, Torlyn is correct. One can't judge "effectiveness" on casualty figures alone - if we were to do that, the German invasion of Russia and the American intervention in Vietnam would be unqualified successes.
48Highlander said:That's true. This all depends on which arabs we're talking about. The original topic was "why arabs lose wars", not "why arabs are ineffective terrorists". The invasion of Iraq was a war. What's going on there now....maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I wouldn't consider it a war, no more than two airplanes crashing into the world trade center constituted a war. And yes, I know that the Bush administration is calling the whole thing a "war on terror". That terminology is probably part of the reason why the insurgents in Iraq are having as much success as they are; because they US forces are trying to fight a war, while the insurgents use mainly hit-and-run tactics and indiscriminate bombings.
Same thing if you look back to when Israel was first formed and attacked. The Arabs lost the war, but the terrorist tactics going on now are "effective". The way I see it....any idiot can pick up a weapon and start taking out civilians....or make a bomb and drive it into the middle of a military formation....and on a man-for-man basis it'll seem to be pretty effective. It's much harder to create a fighting force which can stand up on the field on battle and engage and destroy their enemies.
Infanteer said:So what you are really trying to address is the definition of war. How is an Republican Guard soldier taking on an American soldier any different than an Insurgent in Fallujah taking on an American soldier? You may want to be careful on how you answer that lest the answer be confined to the box of "Westphalian state actors".
Infanteer said:Some thinkers believe that terrorist attacks and insurgency fighting are just as relevent to the dialogue of conflict and war as high intensity battles. I think they're on to something:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/19350.0.html
Infanteer said:And despite the best efforts of the most powerful military force on Earth, two years later they are still fighting for control of Iraq with these "idiots who picked up weapons". Again, perhaps your focusing too narrowly on the conflict through the lens of Western, Westphalian norms and placing too much emphasis on the physical level of conflict - try moving to the moral level.
Hey! Torlyn is the white Knight!48, Torlyn is correct.
but Israel was fresh from the womb.
Acorn said:Interesting article Infanteer. I'll have to start looking for Poole to add to my library.