PJB:How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative

[LnGrrrR]

Asking how likely it is the tactic would be effective in this case is not tantamount to asking how many generals have surrendered, and criticizing the particular case, even ignorantly, does not amount to denouncing psyops as such. You're really starting to reach here.

Oh come now. You asked how effective psyops could be, without listing what criteria you thought would gauge it's effectiveness. I stated that, at the least, determining how many people surrendered (esp higherups) would be a good metric for determining psyops effectiveness. (I can quote the post, if you want.)

Then, when I pointed out that one higher-up surrendered already, you poopooed the idea that psyops had anything to do with it.

How do you think the effectiveness of psyops should be measured WH? What metrics would you use? Doyou require that all soldiers who surrender state openly and unequivocally, "I'm surrendering due to the appeals and not for personal self-interest!"?

[LnGrrrR]

So I didn't agree with you promptly enough?

Essentially.

[LnGrrrR]

Both of your "criticisms" were couched with your own unfounded beliefs though. Let's see.

That said, the Wired bit wasn't great analysis by any stretch, but deapite its flippancy it's plausibly correct. Before we have degraded or demoralized Qaddafi's troops, showering them with leaflets urging them to surrender amounts to a Hail Mary at best and at worst, only steels the resolve of the enemy.

How do you know this? Do you have anything backing up your assertion? Why couldn't it just be one of a myriad of tools designed to help demoralize?

The conditions (as outlined by LnGrrR upstream) likely to make the tactic effective arguably do not exist yet: Qaddafi's troops are not surrounded, not demoralized and are not significantly degraded relative to the insurrectionary forces they face. Moreover, those forces are weak, disorganized and are not a credible authority to which Qaddafi's generals could surrender.

And yet, the surrender of that Secretary undermines this very argument, does it not? And if the troops are not demoralized, why does the article point out that Gadhafi's troops were shown fleeing from an engagement?

[Winehole23]

Face it: you got bent out of shape about a crappy little blog post. I acknowledged its crappiness the same day you complained about it. If that makes me a backtracker, so be it. I suppose you'd have preferred a foolish consistency.

[Winehole23]

Essentially.

That's perfectly asinine.

[LnGrrrR]

Face it: you got bent out of shape about a crappy little blog post. I acknowledged its crappiness the same day you complained about it. If that makes me a backtracker, so be it. I suppose you'd have preferred a foolish consistency.

Your words and actions don't go together though; you call the article poor, but then state in your own words reasons why you think the tactic is ineffective, as evidenced by the post above. Are you saying now that you didn't put your own spin on what you thought of the tactic? That you didn't agree that the tactic was a "hail mary at best"?

I'm not bent out of shape; I'm merely educating.

[LnGrrrR]

That's perfectly asinine.

As is your unfounded opinion that surrender appeals are "silly". Unless you've changed your mind on that, as well.

[Winehole23]

How do you know this? Do you have anything backing up your assertion? Why couldn't it just be one of a myriad of tools designed to help demoralize?

Sure, why not.

And yet, the surrender of that Secretary undermines this very argument, does it not?

Maybe, maybe not. Beg the question much?

And if the troops are not demoralized, why does the article point out that Gadhafi's troops were shown fleeing from an engagement?

Tide seems to have reversed since then. Does that undermine your argument?

[Winehole23]

You're not without recourse to a specious rationality either, hoss.

[Winehole23]

As is your unfounded opinion that surrender appeals are "silly".

That's not my opinion. I meant to criticize an instance, not the tactic as such. The tactic is fine. I think I've emphasized that a couple of times now. If by some imprecision of phrasing I've left you with the opposite impression I disclaim it now and forever.

[Winehole23]

Jeez, you're hard headed. Don't you pay attention to what people say?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, why not.

That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not the one saying that surrender appeals are a Hail Mary.

Maybe, maybe not. Beg the question much?

You're free to answer that psyops had no say, as you did upthread.

Tide seems to have reversed since then. Does that undermine your argument?

Not really. My argument all along has been that surrender appeals are just one tool in a big toolbox. If the tide has reversed, it could be due to any number of factors.

[LnGrrrR]

You're not without recourse to a specious rationality either, hoss.

Who isn't?

[Winehole23]

this ty little war.

[Winehole23]

Defend the tactics all you want. They're making the humanitarian situation worse. So the the whole lot of it.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not my opinion. I meant to criticize an instance, not the tactic as such. The tactic is fine. I think I've emphasized that a couple of times now. If by some imprecision of phrasing I've left you with the opposite impression I disclaim it now and forever.

Fair enough. Given your earlier posts:

I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

I assumed that you thought surrender appeals/leaflet bombs were silly in all instances. I think you'll agree that my take wasn't entirely unjustified. Regardless, disclaimer accepted.

[Winehole23]

I think you'll agree that my take wasn't entirely unjustified.

Disagree. You selectively ignored fairly clear statements to reach the conclusion you did. Defending that now weakens your point, frankly.

[LnGrrrR]

Defend the tactics all you want. They're making the humanitarian situation worse. So the the whole lot of it.

An understandable position. I haven't decided one way or the other; I'm not a fan of leaders committing genocide on their own people, but I also doubt our ability to affect long-term positive change.

[LnGrrrR]

Disagree. You selectively ignored fairly clear statements to reach the conclusion you did. Defending that now weakens your point, frankly.

Defending what now?

And I didn't see any clear statements that surrender appeals were an effective tactic; I remember seeing a lot of "probably/possibly" qualifiers. If I misread, mea culpa.

[Winehole23]

Having to repeat myself over and over, is annoying. But, my verbal precision was maybe lacking.

[LnGrrrR]

Having to repeat myself over and over, is annoying. But, my verbal precision was maybe lacking.

It's a character fault of mine, but when debating, I usually prefer clear, black and white statements if possible. It's why I repeat questions often; I don't like to argue a point if it isn't clearly defined. (Which is probably the main thrust of why I disliked the article/blogpost in the first place.)

[Winehole23]

(in time out)

[LnGrrrR]

I made my points cavalierly; you can't help being pedantic about that. I should have known better.

Being pedantic on this board is a near-requirement, I find. If it makes you feel any better, I do the same to everyone I argue with here. You can ask WC or DarrinS; I'm sure they'll back me up on my pedanticity. (sp?)

[MannyIsGod]

To be fair, one man's clear point is another man's Winehole post.

[Winehole23]

Being pedantic on this board is a near-requirement, I find.

I don't think so. Vive la difference.