FLASH: Obama’s Drone Bombings Have Killed More People Than Spanish Inquisition

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...h-inquisition/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...h-inquisition/ Originally Posted by SEE3772

Would it have made you feel better if another 4500+ Americans would have lost their lives in Iraq, on Obama's watch?

I believe SEE would have been looking under rocks for a conspiracy in either event.

Would it have made you feel better if another 4500+ Americans would have lost their lives in Iraq, on Obama's watch? Originally Posted by bigtex

So..BT? 4500 is "bad".. but 1800 soldiers dead because of Obama's ordered SURGES is "good"?

Just trying to understand your definition of "good" deaths and "bad" deaths.. 4500 by Bush=Bad. 1800+ by Obama=not bad?

So..BT? 4500 is "bad".. but 1800 soldiers dead because of Obama's ordered SURGES is "good"?

Just trying to understand your definition of "good" deaths and "bad" deaths.. 4500 by Bush=Bad. 1800+ by Obama=not bad? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I never mentioned, or even alluded to, "good" deaths vs "bad" deaths. Did I?

But even had I done so, you're comparing apples to oranges! The aforementioned 1800 American lives would have not been lost, were it not for the original incomplete mission which cost 4500+ American lives. You can't have one without the other!

But let's set that aside for a moment and consider the following "drone" scenario:

But this thread is about Drones, so let's play out this scenario.

You must choose Option A or Option B:

We know that Option A could possibly result in a loss of 4500+ American lives over a 6 1/2 year period as well as the distinct possibility of an additional 1800 American lives further down the road.

Option B, let the Drones do the dirty work resulting in a minimal loss of American life.

Hmmmmm, that's a tough decision, isn't it?

So..BT? 4500 is "bad".. but 1800 soldiers dead because of Obama's ordered SURGES is "good"?

Just trying to understand your definition of "good" deaths and "bad" deaths.. 4500 by Bush=Bad. 1800+ by Obama=not bad? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

With the above quoted post, this officially became another stupid fucking thread.

IBIdiot, please come in and tap dance for us. This thread is ready for your "goofy juice jizz."

I never mentioned, or even alluded to, "good" deaths vs "bad" deaths. Did I?

But even had I done so, you're comparing apples to oranges! The aforementioned 1800 American lives would have not been lost, were it not for the original incomplete mission which cost 4500+ American lives. You can't have one without the other!

But let's set that aside for a moment and consider the following "drone" scenario:

But this thread is about Drones, so let's play out this scenario.

You must choose Option A or Option B:

We know that Option A could possibly result in a loss of 4500+ American lives over a 6 1/2 year period as well as the distinct possibility of an additional 1800 American lives further down the road.

Option B, let the Drones do the dirty work resulting in a minimal loss of American life.

Hmmmmm, that's a tough decision, isn't it? Originally Posted by bigtex

Actually, your repeated posting of the same old bit of information implied that you think Bush deaths are bad and Obama deaths are, if not good, then acceptable. You are a low life you know.

As far as your insipid drone question; which one gets the job done? That is the real question. The question that Eisenhower had to answer. Can I win this war with just bombing or do I have to invade Europe? If I invade Europe where is the best place to invade? The place with the least amount of allied deaths or the place that will get us into Germany fastest? You don't even know the question yet.

Actually, your repeated posting of the same old bit of information implied that you think Bush deaths are bad and Obama deaths are, if not good, then acceptable. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If anything, my implication was that the total number of deaths (6300) should have never occurred. I have never said, or even implied, the 1800 deaths that occurred on Obama's watch were "good" deaths. And furthermore, I never will!

JDIdiot, your reading comprehension skills have yet to extend beyond the third grade level.

If anything, my implication was that the total number of deaths (6300) should have never occurred. Originally Posted by bigtex

That's true of the 50,000+/- a year on our highways. Not to mention any war.

You really should stay at home and keep the 50,000 under control.

The problem is not with me Tampon but with you. You are what you are and you can never really change.

Do you believe the OP is correct?