re: Brit SAS whistleblower actually made me like them more

quote:

---

Nor did it in any way insinuate it would “permanently eliminate every cartel.” That’s your straw man.

---

On that narrow point, fair. Sure, you never claimed those exact words. “Permanently eliminate every cartel” was my own extrapolation from your “it didn’t matter” standard, and it went beyond what you said. Congrats, take your usual arrogant victory lap over a tiny procedural victory.

Now let’s return to what you actually said.

quote:

---

Yes the group that lost the war against the inferior opponent compared to the cartel would certainly do damage to the cartel.

Those guys were badasses, but it didn’t matter.

---

rltiger’s claim was that a few teams, with U.S. support, could inflict serious damage. Your response used the ultimate outcome of an entire war to dismiss the ability of one regiment to inflict that damage. Those are two different propositions. A unit can inflict serious tactical damage while still serving on the losing side of a much larger war.

quote:

---

My comment didn’t even require “serious” damage.

---

Then your comment didn’t address his claim, because his claim expressly did require “serious damage.”

If your point is merely that a few teams could inflict damage without defeating the entire cartel system, nobody disagreed with you. If your point is that they couldn’t inflict serious damage, pointing out that Rhodesia ultimately lost the war does not establish that.

That is the distinction I’ve been making. No redefinition required.