• 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!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

I know there's no such thing as an objective source, as far as you're concerned, when you're proven wrong, but here you go.

50,000 Iraqi insurgents dead, caught - Washington Times

Do you even read the sources you site?

U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed or arrested more than 50,000 Iraqi insurgents in the past seven months, a former top general who has headed repeated Pentagon assessment missions to Iraq said yesterday.

Gen. Jack Keane, a former deputy chief of staff for the Army, also said the United States has a good picture of the leadership of the vicious insurgency but less of an idea about its mid- and lower-level ranks.

"We know who they are," he told a lunch gathering sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said the eight to 10 leaders "occasionally meet -- we've recorded that -- not just in Iraq, but in Jordan and Syria."

Gen. Keane's remarks provided a rare insight into the extent of U.S.-led operations against an insurgency that has been responsible for hundreds of deaths in the past few weeks alone.

Pentagon officials previously had been quoted as saying 15,000 to 16,000 Iraqis were in custody in Iraq, but spokesman Lawrence DiRita was unable to comment last night on the 50,000 figure offered by the general.

"I would highly doubt that anyone has a good handle on the numbers," he said. "I'm not aware of what General Keane has been told, but I know of no number that has been provided to the secretary, briefed by the commanders, or is being tracked by anyone."

Gen. Keane, noting that the numbers probably were higher now, said, "In the past six to seven months, we have killed or captured 50,000 insurgents."

The retired general has traveled to Iraq twice in uniform and twice as a civilian to assess progress there for the U.S. military. He did not explain how the number had been obtained.

A Defense Department consultant, retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, said Gen. Keane's figure likely includes some Iraqis who were swept up in military operations and subsequently released.

"Does that mean all of them are terrorists or still being held? Probably not. It means we are making inroads, but not that we captured 50,000 terrorists," he said.

Is this what is supposed to prove me wrong?

:rofl

Here is a tip...read before you link.
 
Do you even read the sources you site?



Is this what is supposed to prove me wrong?

:rofl

Here is a tip...read before you link.

You did notice the dates provided in article? Prolly not, huh?
 
I'm sure it wasn't when communists took over in Laos and Cambodia and killed hundreds of thousnds of civilians.

Do you study the Cold War. At all? I'll ask again, do you know what the Domino Theory (what it was actually called) was as it was applied in SE Asia or even throughout the world?
 
You did notice the dates provided in article? Prolly not, huh?

The dates are irrelevant at this point. You said we'd killed over 50,000 actual terrorists. You used this article as a source for that figure. That article in no way even came close to supporting your assertion.

Let's try again. Can you please provide a source for your claim? One that preferably supports what you are saying?
 
The dates are irrelevant at this point. You said we'd killed over 50,000 actual terrorists. You used this article as a source for that figure. That article in no way even came close to supporting your assertion.

Let's try again. Can you please provide a source for your claim? One that preferably supports what you are saying?

Ok, so how many did we actually kill, if my figger'n is wrong?
 
Ok, so how many did we actually kill, if my figger'n is wrong?

So I take it that you have no actual source that supports your argument. You just heard that number somewhere and jumped on it in an attempt to rebut someone. And now that your alleged source has been debunked it's a case of "well who cares, you have to prove me personally wrong!"

Let me counter your question with some questions of my own...because obviously you want to play a game here. What does the word "terrorist" mean to you? Do you know the definition of the word? Do you know the definition of the word "insurgent?" Are the two synonymous to you? If so, why?
 
So I take it that you have no actual source that supports your argument. You just heard that number somewhere and jumped on it in an attempt to rebut someone. And now that your alleged source has been debunked it's a case of "well who cares, you have to prove me personally wrong!"

Let me counter your question with some questions of my own...because obviously you want to play a game here. What does the word "terrorist" mean to you? Do you know the definition of the word? Do you know the definition of the word "insurgent?" Are the two synonymous to you? If so, why?

Since I'm wrong, and I'm not asking you prove a negative, it should be no problem for you to post some more accurate numbers. Yes? We'll be waiting.
 
Here is the best source you can get, seems as if it is about 20,000. I would say this shows our soldiers restraint, as more then 150,000 have been captured.

Insurgent ‘body count’ records released | Stars and Stripes

Insurgent vs. terrorist. The distinction is not always clear. The two are not mutually exclusive nor are they always synonymous. Which is one of my points here in light of the "we've killed over 50,000 terrorists." No, we have not. As your article clearly counters that notion.

One of my arguments is the deliberate misrepresentation of the situation that some attempt to undertake.
 
Since I'm wrong, and I'm not asking you prove a negative, it should be no problem for you to post some more accurate numbers. Yes? We'll be waiting.

You're own source proves you wrong, Jackboots source proves you wrong. You're simply avoiding the issue now.

You don't actually know much about how a debate works do you?
 
Looks like 170,000 out of circulation. Not bad, I say. Regardless of what the actual numbers are, my originl premise still stands.

No it doesn't. :rofl
 
Looks like 170,000 out of circulation. Not bad, I say. Regardless of what the actual numbers are, my originl premise still stands.

That would only be true if it was terrorists killed, but neither source supports that. You made claim, now back it up.
 
Insurgent vs. terrorist. The distinction is not always clear. The two are not mutually exclusive nor are they always synonymous. Which is one of my points here in light of the "we've killed over 50,000 terrorists." No, we have not. As your article clearly counters that notion.

One of my arguments is the deliberate misrepresentation of the situation that some attempt to undertake.

Insurgent vs terrorist....hmmm, I don't think that is at all important, I do know our soldiers refer to them all as insurgents, or enemy, 6 of one, half dozen of another.:shrug:
 
You folks are like owls, the more light people shine in your eyes, the less you see.
 
Insurgent vs terrorist....hmmm, I don't think that is at all important, I do know our soldiers refer to them all as insurgents, or enemy, 6 of one, half dozen of another.:shrug:

Actually it's very important in the context of apdst's argument. But I agree, the term "enemy" is universally applicable in any case.
 
My son would kill me (not literally) if he were serving in the military and I were off making a public spectacle of myself bitching about the way things are run. Good Lord, I can't even get away with that with his elementary school.
 
You folks are like owls, the more light people shine in your eyes, the less you see.

It is important. Let me ask you another question: how many insurgents where there in Iraq before we invaded?
 
You folks are like owls, the more light people shine in your eyes, the less you see.

Translation: "Oh crap, I'm busted...I know....RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC, YOU HAVE YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND....RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC...YOU'RE CLUELESS...RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC!!!!!"

Why do you types think this is somehow an intelligent or reasonable rebuttal? Why don't you just counter? You see how I debunked your source? Why don't you actually take the comments I made, break them down, and attempt to intelligent counter them? You're here, you're posting. It doesn't take that much more energy.

Why don't you just do that? Is it because you can't?
 
It is important. Let me ask you another question: how many insurgents where there in Iraq before we invaded?

As many as there were after we invaded. They just weren't operational, yet.
 
My son would kill me (not literally) if he were serving in the military and I were off making a public spectacle of myself bitching about the way things are run. Good Lord, I can't even get away with that with his elementary school.

Well in this case, the son is dead. Not much he can say or do about his moms actions you know. Which is probably the only reason she is now crying out publicly.
 
Translation: "Oh crap, I'm busted...I know....RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC, YOU HAVE YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND....RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC...YOU'RE CLUELESS...RHETORIC RHETORIC RHETORIC!!!!!"

Why do you types think this is somehow an intelligent or reasonable rebuttal? Why don't you just counter? You see how I debunked your source? Why don't you actually take the comments I made, break them down, and attempt to intelligent counter them? You're here, you're posting. It doesn't take that much more energy.

Why don't you just do that? Is it because you can't?

That's Libbo for, "if you tell me that the sun rises in the east, I'll demand proof".
 
My son would kill me (not literally) if he were serving in the military and I were off making a public spectacle of myself bitching about the way things are run. Good Lord, I can't even get away with that with his elementary school.

It wouldn't be any of his business.
You'd have to act in accordance with your conscience.
On the other hand, you'd have to take into account that- especially if you made headlines- he might take flack for it, just like in elementary school.
Except that, if he were deployed at the time, the consequences could be far more serious.

Taking all that into account, you'd then have to act as your conscience dictated.
I'm not sure whether these parents haven't thought their actions through, or whether they have, and they've decided that despite the potential repercussions, they need to do this.
Since I don't know, i'm not going to judge them.
 
As many as there were after we invaded. They just weren't operational, yet.

WHAT?????????????? Are you serious? This is your answer?

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
My son would kill me (not literally) if he were serving in the military and I were off making a public spectacle of myself bitching about the way things are run. Good Lord, I can't even get away with that with his elementary school.

Then, again, he might be proud of you. Ya never know.
 
Back
Top Bottom