• 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!

U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

Non-combatant civilians is my definition of innocents in this context.
A non-combatant civilian doesn't = innocent. Glad you revised that.


How many American civilians have the extremists killed? Now compare that to the number of civilians we have killed in various countries in modern history?
I asked you --- you claimed you knew the U.S. killed more "innocents" than terrorist so you must be keeping count.... you need to answer the question. What's the count?
 
A non-combatant civilian doesn't = innocent. Glad you revised that.


I asked you --- you claimed you knew the U.S. killed more "innocents" than terrorist so you must be keeping count.... you need to answer the question. What's the count?

In Vietnam, there were no killings of American citizens and we killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnam civilians. Same with our war against Iraq.
 
In Vietnam, there were no killings of American citizens and we killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnam civilians. Same with our war against Iraq.

What's the count?
 
In Vietnam, there were no killings of American citizens and we killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnam civilians. Same with our war against Iraq.

So now it is "modern history"? So you can expand what killing is more and more until you "win", eh? How many Vietnamese were Muslims? The debate is about Muslims and Americans fighting and killing in the current Middle East wars. Stay on topic.
 
So now it is "modern history"? So you can expand what killing is more and more until you "win", eh? How many Vietnamese were Muslims? The debate is about Muslims and Americans fighting and killing in the current Middle East wars. Stay on topic.

Okay, it was the same as with Vietnam. How many American civilians did the Iraqis kill before we attacked them?
 
Vietnam - "Overall figures for North Vietnamese civilian dead range from 50,000[1] to 2,000,000.[27]"
Vietnam War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americans civilians killed by Vietnamese before we invaded - 0
We're not discussing Vietnam or are you claiming the Vietnamese were terrorists?

Iraq - from the most conservative civilian numbers - "66,081 civilian deaths"
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American civilians killed by Iraqis before we invaded - 0

Where's the terrorist count?
 
We're not discussing Vietnam or are you claiming the Vietnamese were terrorists?
Where's the terrorist count?

I see, you would rather not look at our pattern of killing more civilians in other countries then our "enemy" killed here.

Very well, there were no Iraqi terrorist attacks on American civilians before we attacked Iraq. That's the point! Compared with the 66,000 Iraqi civilians we killed by the most conservative count, which I referenced above..

And you think we hold the moral high ground in our war with Iraq???

"Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore!" - John Prine
 
Last edited:
Okay, it was the same as with Vietnam. How many American civilians did the Iraqis kill before we attacked them?

This is about Muslims killing Muslims in the Middle East versus Americans killing Muslims in the Middle East. Can you actually NOT graps this?
 
I see, you would rather not look at our pattern of killing more civilians in other countries then our "enemy" killed here.
It was a test. You stated the U.S. has killed more innocent people than terrorist. First you don't know how many terrorist we've killed. Second, there's no way for you to verify or know who was or was not innocent. Third, your reply was one that included Vietnam (over 60 years ago and has zero to do with terrorism), then add your long standing talking point from Wikipedia.

It shows me you're simply demagoging and have clear understanding of what you say. It's just turn on the switch and the rhetoric pours forth.

But thanks for taking the time to verify it. Every once in a while I need to see if someone has grown; learned something or maybe has started being a little more honest in their discussion. I see you have not, but I appreciate you taking the time.
 
It was a test. You stated the U.S. has killed more innocent people than terrorist. First you don't know how many terrorist we've killed. Second, there's no way for you to verify or know who was or was not innocent. Third, your reply was one that included Vietnam (over 60 years ago and has zero to do with terrorism), then add your long standing talking point from Wikipedia.

I provided the most conservative numbers available, and you have provided nothing to refute them.

It shows me you're simply demagoging and have clear understanding of what you say. It's just turn on the switch and the rhetoric pours forth.

It shows me you don't have facts to back up your opinion, as usual.
 
This is about Muslims killing Muslims in the Middle East versus Americans killing Muslims in the Middle East. Can you actually NOT graps this?

Oh, the civilians we kill do not count? Is that how you would like to play? My point is that we kill far more civilians in other countries, than we have civilians killed here by other countries.

Let me clear, I'm not condoning in any way our civilians being killed, I'm just pointing out that our killing of civilians in countries that are of no military threat to us, is no better.
 
I provided the most conservative numbers available, and you have provided nothing to refute them.
My purpose isn't to dispute them. :lamo

It shows me you don't have facts to back up your opinion, as usual.
Your posts consistently champion one side of the story, and parrot it at every opportunity. How many terrorists? You don't know, you have NO facts on the terrorists... That's called partisan shilling.

Thanks for continually verifying... please say more and verify more. I can't wait. :popcorn2:
 
My purpose isn't to dispute them. :lamo

Your posts consistently champion one side of the story, and parrot it at every opportunity. How many terrorists? You don't know, you have NO facts on the terrorists... That's called partisan shilling.

Thanks for continually verifying... please say more and verify more. I can't wait. :popcorn2:

As usual I've proven my point, with you providing nothing to refute but it lip flapping, and you think you've won the argument. Carry on Ockham!
 
Let me clear, I'm not condoning in any way our civilians being killed, I'm just pointing out that our killing of civilians in countries that are of no military threat to us, is no better.


How can you tell a terrorist from a civilian? Do you know?

If you have any idea at all perhaps you can pass it along to those people who do the groping at the airports.

But my guess is that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
 
How can you tell a terrorist from a civilian? Do you know?

If you have any idea at all perhaps you can pass it along to those people who do the groping at the airports.

But my guess is that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Terrorists attack innocent people, civilians are non-combatants. The idea behind airport security is to prevent another group of Saudi's or others feom stealing our planes and blowing them up, or flying them into buildings.

Terrorists attacking the US and killing civilians, is a very rare occurrence. The US attacking another country and killing civilians is not a rare occurrence. The most conservative numbers have been provided above.
 
Terrorists attack innocent people, civilians are non-combatants. The idea behind airport security is to prevent another group of Saudi's or others feom stealing our planes and blowing them up, or flying them into buildings.

Terrorists attacking the US and killing civilians, is a very rare occurrence. The US attacking another country and killing civilians is not a rare occurrence. The most conservative numbers have been provided above.

When it comes to terrorism, it doesn't matter whether someone is attacking the US or another country. What matters is if someone is attacking (targetting) civilians (innocence might be debated, so best to leave it at 'civilians').

One can claim to be attacking satan or windmills, the important distinction is the real and direct target.
 
Last edited:
Oh, the civilians we kill do not count? Is that how you would like to play? My point is that we kill far more civilians in other countries, than we have civilians killed here by other countries.

Let me clear, I'm not condoning in any way our civilians being killed, I'm just pointing out that our killing of civilians in countries that are of no military threat to us, is no better.

Are we specifically targeting innocent civilians now or something? If not then there is a distinction that you are overlooking and it is not helping your point in this debate at all... if your only point is that we inadvertantly kill more civilians there than they purposely kill here then that is fine and I doubt anybody would debate that. If so, then why are you debating against those claiming another simple truth? That is that Muslim terrorists specifically target and kill more innocent Muslims than we do.
 
When it comes to terrorism, it doesn't matter whether someone is attacking the US or another country. What matters is if someone is attacking (targetting) civilians (innocence might be debated, so best to leave it at 'civilians').

One can claim to be attacking satan or windmills, the important distinction is the real and direct target.


It matters little to a dead civilian or his family if he was targeted or killed inadvertently to establish US hegemony.
 
Your non-answer is extremely telling... about what I figured.
 
Terrorists attack innocent people, civilians are non-combatants.

But of course that wasn't the question.

The question is, "How do you tell the difference between a terrorist and a "non-combatant". The correct response is, "you can't". Not until after the deed has been committed or they are caught in the act. Isn't that correct? Otherwise it would be very easy to catch terrorists because we could recognize them as such. Right?

The idea behind airport security is to prevent another group of Saudi's or others feom stealing our planes and blowing them up, or flying them into buildings.

Who told you this? You really should share your sources. I think they'd be a lot of fun.
Terrorists attacking the US and killing civilians, is a very rare occurrence.

And a good thing too. The most publicized ones have been those where civilians have stopped them, not airport security.

The US attacking another country and killing civilians is not a rare occurrence.

And unfortunately dictators killing their own people, and foreigners, is also not a rare occurrence. Are you in favor of dictatorships?
The most conservative numbers have been provided above.

You have lists of conservative numbers and liberal numbers? Why not just have honest numbers?

My guess is that they are unavailable because nobody knows. And the reason for that is because terrorists and civilians all dress in a variety of ways. Terrorist have no distinguishing physical characteristics or dress codes. You cannot tell a terrorist from a civilian just by looking at them, or their bodies. Did no one explain this to you before?
 
Last edited:
Who told you this? You really should share your sources. I think they'd be a lot of fun.

What do you think that airport security is for then?

And a good thing too. The most publicized ones have been those where civilians have stopped them, not airport security.

The biggest and worst cases were ones that the FBI and such stop before hand...

And unfortunately dictators killing their own people, and foreigners, is also not a rare occurrence. Are you in favor of dictatorships?

Good question. I remember the bitching and whining in '93 after the Black Hawk Down incident when we left Somolia and left untold thousands to die of starvation and live under dictators using terror simply because some of our soldiers died. The whole thing left me pissed off to this day...
 
I remember the bitching and whining in '93 after the Black Hawk Down incident when we left Somolia and left untold thousands to die of starvation and live under dictators using terror simply because some of our soldiers died. The whole thing left me pissed off to this day...

I was so close to jumping into that (we happened to be the company at the top of the alert list [it rotated]), we loaded live ammo (and nothing else) to our rucks at the birds but didn't get on with it.

Here's the thing. The warlord's army was mostly children, like 10-15 years. In the scramble to secure our dudes, there was already a lot of the dead enemy. Had the 82nd jumped in, there would have been thousands killed to secure the block - and most of them woulda been kids... lying there dead, in the street, come morning. You know what that would look like, for our country? No one is gonna hear "but they were drugged-up, suicide bombing and spraying AKs". All the public is gonna hear are the pics in the press that morning "US slaughters children (to secure injured... etc...)". The PR hit was just too much and somewhere after a 'go' was tentative the government decided 'no'.

Despite understanding, and even respecting, the reason not to do it, I still think that engaging with a couple CMH would have been outstanding.


Anyways, good news. Kenya (with US and Euro backing) is routing Al Shabaab throughout Somalia, having taken numerous towns. Kenya's military is rapidly advancing in regard to training, equipment and infrastructure. The Somalis are enjoying playing 'football' and other stuff that had been outlawed (was death penalty for playing soccer). Hopefully, they'll have a semi-functioning democracy within the next ten years. There was a terrorist attack in Nairobi last week (~4 grenades, a few dead), but Kenyans are determined as ever to have a free and useful neighbor.
 
Last edited:
What do you think that airport security is for then?

It's a bureaucratic effort to make it appear something is being done, and in a democratic manner.. Israel is far more effective and efficient with their airport security.

The biggest and worst cases were ones that the FBI and such stop before hand...
Sure, but they weren't mentioned.

Good question. I remember the bitching and whining in '93 after the Black Hawk Down incident when we left Somolia and left untold thousands to die of starvation and live under dictators using terror simply because some of our soldiers died. The whole thing left me pissed off to this day..

Americans were attempting foreign aid in Somalia and were murdered by Islamist thugs. It's hard to have sympathy for any of them.

It's about time Muslims in other countries began doing something about the problems in "the Muslim world', as Barrack Obama calls it, and Americans should look after themselves.
 
From the article you reference:

"Another 6,300 to 23,600 civilian deaths resulting directly or indirectly from the war between 2001 – 2003 should be added to this statistic."

That is not from the article I referenced that is from the article you referenced which did not name the perpetrators, my articles made it abundantly clear that the majority of civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan were perpetrated by the insurgency.






Despite what you have conjured up in your mind, Iraq never requested our invasion. And you ignore that the half million to a million violent Iraqi deaths are above the number happening before our war with Iraq.

"Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed."
Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are also ignoring the Iraqis we killed in 1991:

"a research professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Daponte was a 29-year-old demographer at the Commerce Department in 1992, responsible for keeping track of developments in the Middle East, when she estimated that 158,000 Iraqis -- 86,194 men, 39,612 women and 32,195 children -- had perished in the war and its aftermath."

"In a subsequent 1993 study funded by Greenpeace, Daponte updated and publicly presented her analysis of the Gulf War, raising the total Iraqi death count to 205,000. She estimated that 56,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed during the war, and that another 35,000 died as Saddam Hussein crushed Kurdish and Shiite rebellions that rose up after the United States stopped fighting. The largest number of deaths -- 111,000 -- Daponte attributed to "postwar adverse health effects."

Estimates of deaths in first war still in dispute

Again your articles do not state who the perpetrators were. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom