"Insurgent math" is a counterinsurgency (COIN) concept often associated with leaders like Gen. James Mattis and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, referring to the counterintuitive, often counterproductive, results of using high-volume, indiscriminate kinetic force against a guerrilla enemy. The core premise is that for every innocent civilian killed in a counterinsurgency operation, the insurgency gains new recruits, potentially creating more enemies than are eliminated.
Key Principles of "Insurgent Math"
The 1-to-10 Ratio: A common formulation is that for every 1 insurgent killed, you create 10 new ones due to anger, revenge, or loss of family, effectively making the problem worse rather than better.
Replacement Velocity: Conventional, high-firepower attacks (like heavy artillery or air strikes in civilian areas) often fail to reduce the enemy’s numbers because the rate of recruitment by insurgents exceeds the rate of attrition.
The "Enemy" Definition: The math challenges the definition of "the enemy." If a military action turns a civilian into an active combatant, the "enemy" count has increased despite a successful "kill"
i wonder what the going rate is for an ayatollah
@Zahlanzi saidWell said.
"Insurgent math" is a counterinsurgency (COIN) concept often associated with leaders like Gen. James Mattis and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, referring to the counterintuitive, often counterproductive, results of using high-volume, indiscriminate kinetic force against a guerrilla enemy. The core premise is that for every innocent civilian killed in a counterinsurgency operation, ...[text shortened]... count has increased despite a successful "kill"
i wonder what the going rate is for an ayatollah
@Zahlanzi saidCorrect. Then the best solution is to kill them all out.. granny, auntie, mommy, baby... all.
"Insurgent math" is a counterinsurgency (COIN) concept often associated with leaders like Gen. James Mattis and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, referring to the counterintuitive, often counterproductive, results of using high-volume, indiscriminate kinetic force against a guerrilla enemy. The core premise is that for every innocent civilian killed in a counterinsurgency operation, ...[text shortened]... count has increased despite a successful "kill"
i wonder what the going rate is for an ayatollah
Problem solved.
@Sleepyguy saidThe only good terrorist is a dead one, pal.
Then there is no moral difference between you and the dead Ayatollah.
The fool that started this thread said that when you kill one of these Muslims you create 10 more terrorists. He is suggesting that there is nothing to be done, and one should just leave these cockroaches to run rampant all over the world.
I disagree ... strongly. They need to die, an if you equate that principle with Iran's Ayatollah then you are clueless to the kind of monsters in Islam.
@Rajk999 saidMoron
The only good terrorist is a dead one, pal.
The fool that started this thread said that when you kill one of these Muslims you create 10 more terrorists. He is suggesting that there is nothing to be done, and one should just leave these cockroaches to run rampant all over the world.
I disagree ... strongly. They need to die, an if you equate that principle with Iran's Ayatollah then you are clueless to the kind of monsters in Islam.
@Rajk999 saidYou are proposing the murder of 2 billion people, even the babies, because they are monsters. Got it.
The only good terrorist is a dead one, pal.
The fool that started this thread said that when you kill one of these Muslims you create 10 more terrorists. He is suggesting that there is nothing to be done, and one should just leave these cockroaches to run rampant all over the world.
I disagree ... strongly. They need to die, an if you equate that principle with Iran's Ayatollah then you are clueless to the kind of monsters in Islam.
@Sleepyguy saidNever said anything about 2 billion, I dont know why that figure keeps coming up. Try speaking the truth otherwise you lose credibility.
You are proposing the murder of 2 billion people, even the babies, because they are monsters. Got it.
I responded to the opening post which is saying it is pointless to kill these terrorist murderers because it creates 10 times more terrorist/murderers. So the fool that started this thread is obviously a terrorist supporter who wants to see Americans and non-muslims killed, because when they are killed this very same fool says nothing.
My response was to kill them all. It makes no difference who they are, and because these Muslim terrorists are notorious for using children and babies as human shields then you will need to kill them all. A murder cannot hide behind his children and expect to escape justice.
@Rajk999 saidThere are two billion Muslims is the world.
Never said anything about 2 billion, I dont know why that figure keeps coming up. Try speaking the truth otherwise you lose credibility.
I responded to the opening post which is saying it is pointless to kill these terrorist murderers because it creates 10 times more terrorist/murderers. So the fool that started this thread is obviously a terrorist supporter who wants t ...[text shortened]... will need to kill them all. A murder cannot hide behind his children and expect to escape justice.
@Sleepyguy saidYou act surprised; he's been saying the same thing on this board for years. He wants a world wide Holy War to exterminate all Muslims because he insists that every one of them is a "radical" who desires to kill all non-Muslims. And, of course, if you allow the children to live they'll just grow up to be the same way so the only "safe" thing to do is liquidate them all.
You are proposing the murder of 2 billion people, even the babies, because they are monsters. Got it.
Rajk's a "Final Solution" kind of guy.