That happens in all war... it sucks. But trying to compare the civilian death rates to Bush is a bit nuts. First, Bush did not focus on Afghan, he focused on Iraq. Sadly, Bush has killed far more people.

95,888 ? 104,595 civilian deaths as a result of the Iraq conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

or

"that at least 392,979 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation"
http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf (a study)

VS.

575. That's how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama became President at noon on January 20, 2009 - It's higher than that though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_683441.html

You may want to flush the news articles down the drain saying Obama has killed more Civilians in Afghan than Bush has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...2%80%93present)

Just from 01-03 direct & indirect civilian deaths: 6,300 - 23,600 - That's what happens when you carpet bomb an entire Country with 5000lb bombs. And total, direct civilian deaths: at least 11,443 - 14,240.

I understand that the GOP is preparing a bill to amend the constitution and ban queer threads.

I am comparing the civilian deaths in a country we are not at war with PAKISTAN. Obama has TARGETED civilian HOMES AND FUNERALS. Obama has killed more civilians in PAKISTIAN than Bush. That is fact.

So, the right war in your mind is one where we target civilian homes, in a country we are not at war with, killing 1 ALLEGED terrorist for every 10 to 20 civilians killed, making more terrorist than we are killing, in "part of a war" that Obama's generals say there is no winning. :Oh crap

What's wrong with you people?

Nobody should be trying tell anyone what the founding fathers "had in mind." That's the problem, nobody has any idea what they had in mind. At that, only an idiot would think the founding father(S) all had the same thing in mind, when we already know they didn't.

where's my coffee?

There's no contradiction because both groups try to poke holes in religion based on science, not understanding that there IS no contradiction between those two as much as they sort of complement one another.

No, you're a moron who uses terms he does not understand because he can't think logically.

the founding fathers would not have put up with this thread faggotry.

Fox is spinning out of control on the mosque issue, and their biggest minority shareholder has donated money to the imam in question.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...mosque-planner

Yes, because Bush was fighting a war with Afghan, when we aren't at war with Afghan. When you take the war to the proper place, Civilians die.

Let's take a look at those attacks in Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

04-08 - 405 deaths by Drones - 42 strikes for 10.37%
09-10 - 1013 deaths by Drones - 106 strikes for 10.46%

Well, looks like Obama's numbers aren't that bad after all, more attacks would naturally equal more deaths.

Then looking over the articles, it looks like July of this year to current 87 estimated militants deaths and 7 civilians. Just to compare the listed ones.

I just don't see the numbers you're saying...

there's no legitimate argument against the building of this mosque. The entire anti-mosque argument amounts to "what if feelings get hurt? :'("

If you're against the mosque chances are you're just bigoted against the Muslim faith.

Its called religious freedom and its in an important document. And show me ONE article of a church not being built. Just one, any one, one, maybe

it's not a fucking mosque.

Oppression: Radical Anglo AmeriKKKa's war against Islam

That's like saying "If you support the building, you're a fucking idiot". I know you're a simple minded buffoon who I think is less than 18 years old, but you'll eventually realize that your first part of the sentence has nothing to do with the second part, and it's not a mosque you queer.

i am really beginning to like you..

you call yourself intelligent, yet you call everyone else idiots instead of trying to have any type of coherent debate..

you think your viewpoints are the only ones that make any sense, but you only come off like a person trying to cover up their insecurities because of the constant name calling...

i'm just glad you're here to amuse me and i will continue to look forward to all of the infinite wisdom you have bestowed on this adult forum.... :1orglaugh

are you rush limbaugh?




.




.

Queer? Are you also bigoted against Homosexuals as well as Muslims?

700 civilians killed in 2009 alone
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/u...rikes-in-2009/

Drone attacks creating more terrorist? Are drone attacks a form of terrorism?

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2...138783448.html

I think you've already amused us with your hilarious posts, and this is no different. Let's pick apart your ignorant post, shall we? First, I don't see you criticizing anyone that shares YOUR viewpoints and also tries to impose them on other people, thereby making you biased and reducing your credibility to 0, because you were already unintelligent before we realized you were biased. Secondly, Coup wasn't having any kind of coherent debate. Instead, he was shouting emotional keywords in order NOT to have a coherent debate. So I can only assume that you're both biased, and lack reading comprehension. Or you just don't like me and can't stand the fact that I'm right. Yea, I'm going to go with the 3rd option. And finally, I don't call everyone else idiots, only those that say shit like "If you don't agree with me, you're a bigot!!", courtesy of our forum clown of the week, Coup. So once again, bias+lack of reading comprehension+lack of intelligent=you. Understand? I don't think I can dumb it down any further.:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Let me use your elementary school logic. If you support the building of the community center, then you're a terrorist! Man, it would suck to be as dumb as you.

You're an incoherent bigot

This is all you ever add to conversations

TheDoc, is targeting civilians a war crime?

http://www.fredharper.com/BLOG_STUFF...n_Wedge100.jpg

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya.../simpsons7.jpg

I rest my case.

Yes, most people don't like to be attacked... be it from a Drone, an Airplane dropping a bomb on them or Military personal attacking them. I bet they would like it a lot less if we occupied the lands.


Civilians aren't being targeted... suspected terrorists are. The article you posted above even says that.

hey whatever shuts you up is fine by me

i am always willing to debate a position. just because i am not willing to bend to your ideology does not make my viewpoint any less valid than yours.

the comical part is when i see a person so determined in their beliefs that they are unwilling to have any kind of reasonable discussion and instead start calling people stupid.

yes, there are a few people here that resort to name calling and you are becoming one of them.

i guess you dont have thick enough skin to take these insults and find tossing them back easier than defending or debating your points.

thats surprising considering you that you consider yourself to be so intelligent.

how will you ever uncover what the deeper reasons are to why a person feels a certain way about a topic or issue if you close the door on conversation by calling the other person stupid. to me, that just sounds like an excuse to close the door on further debate.

when you close your mind to opinions other than your own, you close your mind to learning..

that doesnt sound like an intelligent person to me... :2 cents:

btw, how could i like or not like you? i dont even know you... this is an internet board.. dont take it so seriously... :thumbsup





.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_x0AzhByC-q...eabagger02.jpg

More Like TeaKlanners

When did I ask you to bend to my ideology? And I discredit your viewpoint when it's not logical. When you make an argument (rare), you don't see me judging you. So this is a baseless accusation.

You've just described 99% of the liberals on this forum but I don't see you ever calling them out. (Bias)

I've debated countless times with intelligent people on this forum. You can't debate with people who are stupid, like Coup for instance. They don't understand logical viewpoints so why waste the time?

YOu mean like calling someone a bigot because they don't support the community center and/or same sex marriages, calling someone a racist because they don't support Obama, etc? I could go on but the funny thing is, these are all liberal copouts.

This one symbolizes morons like Coup.


http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/f...CR20090912.jpg

I dont see coup arguing emotionally however the only possible argument against building this mosque thingy is based purely on emotion.

Or a logical argument appealing to the emotions of those killed in 9/11, as opposed to calling someone emotional keywords just because you don't have an argument.

The fact that you would even refer to Sarah fuckng palin is a joke in itself.

like really Sarah Palin??????

This thing is only opposed by emotional reactionary amerikkkan conservatives.

I could have used Pelosi but that would be even worse.


Weird, because the Democrats/Liberals are divided on this matter. Are you really this stupid or just ignorant of reality? And wtf is "emotional reactionary"? You just lumped two words together. Did you even complete high school?