• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians

apdst said:
Total war doesn't create terrorism.
Click to expand...

It actually does in the case of the middle east, as you would be fighting the population itself to get the terrorists rather than uniformed combatents.

Their entire strategy is to use us attacks that injure civilians to enlist people to their ranks, which is why fighting the war in a conventional sense does not work, they are not conventional enemies who fight conventional wars. The only way to fight them is to turn the public against terrorists, and if military is used boots on ground, which allows them to capture/kill militants with far fewer civilian casualties to fuel their recruiting machine.
 
beerftw said:
It actually does in the case of the middle east, as you would be fighting the population itself to get the terrorists rather than uniformed combatents.

Their entire strategy is to use us attacks that injure civilians to enlist people to their ranks, which is why fighting the war in a conventional sense does not work, they are not conventional enemies who fight conventional wars. The only way to fight them is to turn the public against terrorists, and if military is used boots on ground, which allows them to capture/kill militants with far fewer civilian casualties to fuel their recruiting machine.
Click to expand...

When has America's waging of total war created terrorists?
 
apdst said:
When has America's waging of total war created terrorists?
Click to expand...

When has america waged total war on terrorism? Prior enemies were different, as I explained, they used armed uniformed combatants rather than terrorism. The way they work is completely different and in no way comparable.


It should be noted we waged a form of total war against vietnam, with carpet bombing napalm and extensive use of agent orange, we lost that war. Both america and germany tried carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion, germany's blitzkrieg failed, and america could not get japan to surrender, even though it did massive amounts more damage than the a-bombs ever dreamed of. Despite turning japan into a smouldering crater, they would not surrender until something until nuclear weapons were used.

Total war like bombing raids would simply fuel the belief that christianity is waging war against islam rather than a war against terrorism, and the mass civilian casualties would simply fuel groups like isis. Heck did you notice isis became powerful not when they were ignored but when there was a civil war in syria and libya, and the infighting and civilian casualties allowed them to greatly increase their numbers.
 
beerftw said:
When has america waged total war on terrorism? Prior enemies were different, as I explained, they used armed uniformed combatants rather than terrorism. The way they work is completely different and in no way comparable.


It should be noted we waged a form of total war against vietnam, with carpet bombing napalm and extensive use of agent orange, we lost that war. Both america and germany tried carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion, germany's blitzkrieg failed, and america could not get japan to surrender, even though it did massive amounts more damage than the a-bombs ever dreamed of. Despite turning japan into a smouldering crater, they would not surrender until something until nuclear weapons were used.

Total war like bombing raids would simply fuel the belief that christianity is waging war against islam rather than a war against terrorism, and the mass civilian casualties would simply fuel groups like isis. Heck did you notice isis became powerful not when they were ignored but when there was a civil war in syria and libya, and the infighting and civilian casualties allowed them to greatly increase their numbers.
Click to expand...

You said total war creates terrorism. Give us an example of when that occurs.
 
Chillfolks said:
Is there anyone that believes this administration is correctly reporting this number?
Click to expand...

I am sure there is someone somewhere who believes it.
They also are waiting for Trapper on Mountain Monsters to catch that wolf man in Kentucky as well.:lamo
 
apdst said:
You said total war creates terrorism. Give us an example of when that occurs.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. However to try and use total war against terrorism would be genocide to millions of innocent people.

We fuel terrorism every time we let their antics destroy our freedom and way of life. To live in constant fear to the point of even taking away our own freedom is letting them win. They have clearly beaten a large percentage of the world. Even our own government is panicking into removing the rights of citizens on mere suspicion. They have made panicking cowards of the leaders of the so called super power. They have our leaders taking away our constitutional rights out of the fear and terror they have brought upon the people of this country.

The once courageous people who told the super power Great Britain we declare our independence are now cowering over a terrorist. Even today as we celebrate our independence our rights and freedom are being restricted because of the actions of a few terrorist. A handful of terrorist have brought 250 million people to their knees.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
It doesn't. However to try and use total war against terrorism would be genocide to millions of innocent people.

We fuel terrorism every time we let their antics destroy our freedom and way of life. To live in constant fear to the point of even taking away our own freedom is letting them win. They have clearly beaten a large percentage of the world. Even our own government is panicking into removing the rights of citizens on mere suspicion. They have made panicking cowards of the leaders of the so called super power. They have our leaders taking away our constitutional rights out of the fear and terror they have brought upon the people of this country.

The once courageous people who told the super power Great Britain we declare our independence are now cowering over a terrorist. Even today as we celebrate our independence our rights and freedom are being restricted because of the actions of a few terrorist. A handful of terrorist have brought 250 million people to their knees.
Click to expand...

The islamofacists will only be defeated when we deliver enough carnage upon them so sat to make, "jihad", a dirty word in that part of the world. Much the same way we made fascism a dirty word in Germany and Bo****o a dirty word in Japan. Until then, the terrorists will keep-on-keepin-on.
 
beerftw said:
Total war will do nothing to stem terrorism though, it will just increase their numbers and end up with massive civilian casualties. They are not enemies to fight openly they hide among the people and use the people as a shield. Heck lets say they nuked the middle east and it did not end in total nuclear war and the annihilation of the human race, What would stop christians and jews from strapping bombs to themselves, or the remaining muslims worldwide.

Think about it, christians and jews also view parts of the middle east as sacred land, and unless israel modified a can of batmans shark repellant to repel nukes, israel and sounding areas would be taken with it, as well as lebanon which has a heavy christian population.
Click to expand...

Christians perform more acts of goodwill and charity than anybody in the world.

Muslims do anything but.

Stop equating the two.
 
Fledermaus said:
People keep claiming "Hundreds of thousands" killed by coalition forces.... This is simply untrue.

Hell, the military kills were under 50,000....
Click to expand...

The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-2006
Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006
Estimates of the death toll in Iraq from the time of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 until June 2006 have ranged from 47,668 (from the Iraq Body Count) to 601,027 (from a national survey). Results from the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS), which was conducted in 2006 and 2007, provide new evidence on mortality in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Iraq Body Count
Documented civilian deaths from violence
160,287 – 179,170
Total violent deaths including combatants
251,000
Click to expand...
Iraq War Logs: What the numbers reveal
AP IMPACT: Secret tally has 87,215 Iraqis dead
War-related Death, Injury, and Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014
Despite Massive Taliban Death Toll No Drop in Insurgency

We were both wrong.
Very wrong.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-2006
Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006

Iraq Body Count

Iraq War Logs: What the numbers reveal
AP IMPACT: Secret tally has 87,215 Iraqis dead
War-related Death, Injury, and Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014
Despite Massive Taliban Death Toll No Drop in Insurgency

We were both wrong.
Very wrong.
Click to expand...

And how many of those deaths were due to the Coalition Forces and/or the US? Not 200,000... Not 100,000

The Number one threat to an Iraqi at the time was other Iraqis.

If Iraqi A wasted Iraqi B it was counted. How is that a US/Coalition death? Ditto a bombing of a Sunni mosque by a Shiia and retaliation bombing by Sunnis on a Shiia marketplace.

In fact they are STILL going at it.
 
Quazimodo said:
Just a thought, and I could be way wrong on this, but as I remember, WE didn't start this. If they want to go back to their sand boxes and be good little camel herders, that's fine with me, but if they want to ruin the future for "ourselves and our posterity," then they are going to have realize that all decisions have consequences.
Click to expand...

The thought of a demonstration of a nuclear weapon very high over Mecca has occurred to me. A nuclear detonation in the air creates almost no fallout, and if it takes place high enough, neither the blast nor the heat would have any effect on the ground. All the same, just the knowledge that the next time it might just as easily be two or three bombs, targeted so as to destroy the city, would do wonders to concentrate the attention of Muslims all over the world. Even a casual mention of the possibility of such a demonstration by a senior U.S. official would might have a similar effect. If a nuclear weapon were ever set off in a U.S. city, killing many thousands of people--and I think there is a fair possibility that jihadists one day will do that--I would favor doing a lot more than just a demonstration in response.
 
Fledermaus said:
And how many of those deaths were due to the Coalition Forces and/or the US? Not 200,000... Not 100,000

The Number one threat to an Iraqi at the time was other Iraqis.

If Iraqi A wasted Iraqi B it was counted. How is that a US/Coalition death? Ditto a bombing of a Sunni mosque by a Shiia and retaliation bombing by Sunnis on a Shiia marketplace.

In fact they are STILL going at it.
Click to expand...

The tallies began with the commencement of the invasions, which obviously skyrocketed due to the involvement of another dozen+ nations' militaries all simultaneously wrecking havoc upon Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to counterintelligence/paramilitary operations (which it should have been in the first place, imo).
 
matchlight said:
The thought of a demonstration of a nuclear weapon very high over Mecca has occurred to me. A nuclear detonation in the air creates almost no fallout, and if it takes place high enough, neither the blast nor the heat would have any effect on the ground. All the same, just the knowledge that the next time it might just as easily be two or three bombs, targeted so as to destroy the city, would do wonders to concentrate the attention of Muslims all over the world. Even a casual mention of the possibility of such a demonstration by a senior U.S. official would might have a similar effect. If a nuclear weapon were ever set off in a U.S. city, killing many thousands of people--and I think there is a fair possibility that jihadists one day will do that--I would favor doing a lot more than just a demonstration in response.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think!

If I could be the one making those decisions, I 'd probably apply that old NRA adage, "Never pull a gun unless you are going to us it, and if do you pull it, USE IT." My first impulse is to turn Mecca into molten glass and let God figure out what went wrong.
 
apdst said:
The islamofacists will only be defeated when we deliver enough carnage upon them so sat to make, "jihad", a dirty word in that part of the world. Much the same way we made fascism a dirty word in Germany and Bo****o a dirty word in Japan. Until then, the terrorists will keep-on-keepin-on.
Click to expand...

No comparison between Germany or Japan and today's terrorist.

First the German and Japanese military faced you on the battlefield. They wore a uniform and were easily discernible from the civilian population for the most part.

Second the people of Germany and Japan supported the military for the most part. They built and supplied their military and the infrastructure that allowed their military to continue to fight.

Terrorism and terrorist can only defeated if and when the people they hide among no longer support them. Or if you exterminate the entire population which is clearly wrong.
 
matchlight said:
The thought of a demonstration of a nuclear weapon very high over Mecca has occurred to me. A nuclear detonation in the air creates almost no fallout, and if it takes place high enough, neither the blast nor the heat would have any effect on the ground. All the same, just the knowledge that the next time it might just as easily be two or three bombs, targeted so as to destroy the city, would do wonders to concentrate the attention of Muslims all over the world. Even a casual mention of the possibility of such a demonstration by a senior U.S. official would might have a similar effect. If a nuclear weapon were ever set off in a U.S. city, killing many thousands of people--and I think there is a fair possibility that jihadists one day will do that--I would favor doing a lot more than just a demonstration in response.
Click to expand...

That would be a very, very, very bad idea.
 
JANFU said:
And after the cities, villages and all infrastructure are destroyed what is next?
Bombing -strafing civilians trying to escape the carnage?
Next - refuges arrive at a countries borders, (turkey is close) what then? Shoot them all??
What is the blow back?

View attachment 67203658

View attachment 67203659
Click to expand...







it will not go that far but if it soes it does,what do you want to do give them a hug,these people will rape your wife in front of you,along with your children before they behead them in fornt of you,you are living in a make believe world,you will convert or die.
yes bimb them into the 4th century,they want us dead,wake up man we are in a war.
what next,more bombs until they get it,you kill AMERICANS we bomb your family in their living rooms and yes this does include wives children grandmothers eveery one of these sick puppies.islam is a religion death.


According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site

80 Million?! The conquistadors' crimes pale into insignificance at that number. No wonder Hitler admired Islam as a fighting religion. He stood in awe of Islam, whose butchery even he did not surpass.

Over 110 Million Blacks were killed by Islam.

Read more: Articles: The Greatest Murder Machine in History
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Renae said:
Doing whatever it takes to deny the enemy the ability and means to wage war.
Click to expand...

The first th ing to do would be to remove their source of income.
 
Quazimodo said:
Oh, Janfu, stop agonizing over this whole war thing. Nobody is going to make you go. Heck, those hayseeds rednecks out in the fly-over states will volunteer and that way you can sit at home and let their sacrifices insure your domestic tranquility and provide for your common defense and your general welfare and all those other things you so richly deserve. Don't worry, we've got it covered.
Click to expand...

He is in Canada
 
beerftw said:
Why would they all end up being terrorists unless we pushed them to? Our own actions of bombing an apartment complex killing numerous civilians to get one guy who made no difference to their efforts drives terrorism.

It is not ww2 where your enemies wear uniforms and openly wave their flag, they hide among the people, and use propoganda to fuel their numbers. Smarter generals have called for a different strategy for a different enemy, while losing ones have called to repeat the same failed strategy over and over because it worked in ww2, but this is not ww2. The generals in ww2 had to fight a different war from their predecessors, much like the generals now have to do the same.
Click to expand...

Do you really think terrorists exist because the West pushed them to be?
 
Tigerace117 said:
That would be a very, very, very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Please explain why. You must think that kowtowing to the world's Muslims in hopes of making them like the United States is a lot more important than I do. All that has done is made them bolder, because they see it is a sign we lack the will to defend our culture against theirs. Having the leaders of the nations which harbor and encourage them be terrified of what the U.S. might to any of those nations would be more than enough for me. This country has an enormous advantage over all the Muslim countries on earth, put together, in military power. And since many of the world's Muslims seem to want to fight us, even if most of them are clever enough to deny that's what their religion calls for, they should be made to understand what the U.S. is capable of, if it ever seriously determined to wage war on one or more of the nations that harbor and support them.

Who rules any Muslim nation does not concern me, as long as that government shows no hostility to the U.S. and does not tolerate jihadists. Shari'ah and its supremacist goals would seem much less attractive to people who knew that practicing them, at the expense of Americans, was a good way to get themselves and their families killed. We have already seem what these people have done in much of Europe, and yet we seem to lack the will to make sure they never try to do it here. Trying to curry favor with foreign Muslims by showing them how nice and tolerant we are only convinces them we are weak. That is what many Europeans have done, and it is endangering the survival of their cultures. The virus they foolishly let in is taking over its host.

I wonder what you would have a U.S. president do, if a nuclear weapon were ever set off in a U.S. city and he was sure Muslim jihadists had done it. Lodge a strong protest with the United Nations? Try to arrest any conspirators (assuming any were still alive and could ever be identified) and prosecute them in a U.S. court? Do nothing, except counsel reason and restraint, while bleating that violence never solves anything? I say anything but an extremely strong response, probably in kind, would be an open invitation to further attacks of the same kind--and it is far from clear this country could survive them.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
No comparison between Germany or Japan and today's terrorist.

First the German and Japanese military faced you on the battlefield. They wore a uniform and were easily discernible from the civilian population for the most part.

Second the people of Germany and Japan supported the military for the most part. They built and supplied their military and the infrastructure that allowed their military to continue to fight.

Terrorism and terrorist can only defeated if and when the people they hide among no longer support them. Or if you exterminate the entire population which is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is defeated the same way an army is defeated, by destroying their will to fight and destroying the will of the people to support them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom