PDA

View Full Version : 6,558 terrorists & insurgents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2006



Sgt Schultz
06-11-2007, 12:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/thorphalanx/terrorist_coalition_kia_2007.gif

6,558 terrorists & insurgents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2006

Sources;
Terrorist Death Watch (http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/terrorist-death-watch/)

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx)

Satan
06-11-2007, 12:06 PM
So......

6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)

out of 650,000 civillians.

Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones". :rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 12:30 PM
What's this supposed to mean, Shultz?

We're not losing?

We're winning?

We're gaining ground over there?

Where's the bar chart showing how many more "terrists" we have to kill till our guys get home from Iraq?

You getting it yet?

No?

Here's why:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jteZR77knz4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jteZR77knz4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

You and your kind never listen...

Nickdfresh
06-11-2007, 05:36 PM
Hurray for body count! (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-04.htm)

Published on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Body Count Redux
by Ivan Eland


During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military released body counts of enemy and friendly dead to the media, which reported them voraciously. Invariably, the military’s data—showing more enemy than friendly dead—was designed to give the illusion that the United States was winning the war. What the data didn’t show was more important: that a tenacious enemy fighting for its homeland would be willing to incur high casualties and outwait an opponent with a short attention span. Similarly, in Iraq, the U.S. military gleefully reports that attacks against U.S. soldiers have dropped by more than half since their peak in November of last year and that firefights between U.S. soldiers and Iraqi guerrillas in Iraqi towns have also diminished. But like the body counts in Vietnam, the American public should be wary of such rosy assessments.

The major reason that fighting between the U.S. military and the insurgents has declined is that the American forces have vacated the field of battle. However unfortunate, with a competitive election coming up this year, the White House knows that the only thing in Iraq that matters to the American public is how many U.S. soldiers are killed and wounded there. Thus, “force protection” has become the number one unstated goal in Iraq. American forces have been pulled out of Iraqi cities and towns and most security functions have been turned over to the amateurish, ill-trained and poorly equipped Iraqi security forces. This same phenomenon occurred in Bosnia in the mid-to late-nineties, when American public support for U.S. involvement in peacekeeping there was lukewarm. American soldiers were ridiculed by the peacekeeping forces of other nations for rarely coming out of their fortified bastions.

What is the result of a policy designed more to avoid a catastrophe before the election than to pacify Iraq? Answer: One of the worst weeks of violence since America’s occupation began. Last week, 125 people were killed in suicide bombings of a police station and an Iraqi Army recruiting station and a violent raid on an Iraqi police station to free prisoners. In addition, guerillas, seemingly tipped off that a VIP would be visiting, attacked the motorcade of John Abizaid, the American general in-charge of all U.S. forces in the Middle East. Most of those attacked or killed in this recent spate of attacks—save the U.S. general—were Iraqi police or military people perceived as collaborating with the American occupation.

Although U.S. officials claim that security in Iraq is improving, a confidential and little noticed report by the American occupation authority itself belies those statements and confirms the intuitive impression that attacks by insurgents are getting worse. The occupation authority’s findings, as reported by London’s Financial Times, state that “January has been the highest rate of violence since September 2003. The violence continues despite the expansion of the Iraqi security services and increased arrests by coalition forces in December and January.” The report concludes that in recent months, attacks against international and nongovernmental organizations, strikes using mortars and explosives (including roadside bombs), strikes in Baghdad and attacks that were non-life threatening have all increased substantially. Also, attacks on military targets rose faster than strikes on their civilian counterparts.

Yet the only recent public indication of underlying security problems was made by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, who was forced by last week’s mayhem to admit that the indigenous security services would not be ready to guarantee public safety in time for the ostensible mid-year turn over of Iraq to the Iraqis, “I think it’s quite clear the Iraqi security forces, brave as they are, and beaten and attacked as they are, are not going to be ready by July 1.” Ideally suited for his job, Mr. Bremer has a gift for understatement.

So if the Iraqi security forces are in shambles and insurgent attacks are rising, the casual observe might ask why are the Americans pulling back to fortified garrisons outside Iraqi cities? Answer: That policy saves the lives of American soldiers while leaving the Iraqi citizenry to the wolves. Strangely, the U.S. military admits this increased risk to Iraqis. So much for the Bush administration’s high-flying rhetoric about making Iraq a better place for its citizens. If a civil war eventually breaks out—as a U.N. representative recently warned and as the occupation authority worried euphemistically in its report—Saddam Hussein’s regime could seem like the good ole’ days for Iraqis.

So although the Bush administration’s policy may be achieving its primary goal—avoiding a sharp escalation in the U.S. body count before November—the voting public should not mistakenly conclude that the United States is winning this war. A reckless Bush administration—like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam War—has stumbled into a war that it can neither win nor escape from gracefully.

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the book, 'Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World'. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.

Copyright 2004 The Independent Institute

###

DEMON CUNT
06-11-2007, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
What's this supposed to mean, Shultz?

That he is willing to lie in order to justify the occupation.

CNN: Baghdad morgue overflowing with bodies in courtyard (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Baghdad_morgue_overflowing_with_bodies_in_0611.htm l)

Sgt Schultz
06-12-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
That he is willing to lie in order to justify the occupation.

CNN: Baghdad morgue overflowing with bodies in courtyard (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Baghdad_morgue_overflowing_with_bodies_in_0611.htm l)

Look up the sources used. If you believe the # of US. casualties (same source) then you must believe the # of terrorists/insurgents.

Satan
06-12-2007, 02:43 PM
The number of US casualties is also incorrect. Far more have died than what has been reported in your corporate media.

How do I know this to be true?

I'm the Devil. And I know my construction budget is exploding, keeping up with all the new "tenants" I'm getting as a result of this illegal war.

St. Peter tells me that they have similar immigration difficulties "up there" as well, but at least Heaven is capable of expanding naturally to keep up with it.

kentuckyklira
06-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Satan
So......

6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)

out of 650,000 civillians.

Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones". :rolleyes: Plus, just cos they get labeled "terrorists" or "insurgents" doesn´t mean they are! Considering the USA´s administration´s track record for honesty and correct information, all I´ll believe is that they´re dead!

DEMON CUNT
06-12-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Look up the sources used. If you believe the # of US. casualties (same source) then you must believe the # of terrorists/insurgents.

Liars seek out lies that match their own. Nice try, sociopath.

Sgt Schultz
06-12-2007, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Liars seek out lies that match their own. Nice try, sociopath.

So, you don't believe any sources regarding coalition deaths or terrorist deaths? Where does the media gets its figures that they breathlessley talk about each time US deaths hit another "grim milestone?" The same place these figures are coming from.

DEMON CUNT
06-12-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
So, you don't believe any sources regarding coalition deaths or terrorist deaths? Where does the media gets its figures that they breathlessley talk about each time US deaths hit another "grim milestone?" The same place these figures are coming from.

Ain't you just the smartest boy for figuring that out all by yourself.

ODShowtime
06-12-2007, 09:51 PM
Since every Iraqi we kill pisses off another 10-20 Iraqis, I fail to see how the body count is really that great of a metric for our success. Especially considering we were there to defeat saddam's forces and liberate the Iraqi people.

Now we're supposed to be happy about how many Iraqis are killed?

Considering that these insurgents try to blend in to the population, how are we to know for sure which people that got blown to bits in an airstrike or cut to pieces with a 50mm were actually terrorists?

Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.

DEMON CUNT
06-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.

Amen!

Carlosyella
06-12-2007, 10:26 PM
1. The insurgents and invaders are the US goverment which invades another nation just because of the petroleum.

2. Let each nation to solve their own problems!

3. USA has no legal authority to invade an independent nation just because they think is "correct".

4. Let's FINISH with the Cuban embargo! Reagan finish with the Cold war in the 80's.

5. Viva Chávez and the unification of all Latin american countries!

ODShowtime
06-12-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Carlosyella
1. The insurgents and invaders are the US goverment which invades another nation just because of the petroleum.

the invaders are US, british and others. The insurgents are iraqis, saudis, syrian, IRANIANS, and other a-rabs

2. Let each nation to solve their own problems!

that's fine unless their problems involve housing or enabling international terrorists

3. USA has no legal authority to invade an independent nation just because they think is "correct".

power is authority


4. Let's FINISH with the Cuban embargo! Reagan finish with the Cold war in the 80's.

no argument there

5. Viva Chávez and the unification of all Latin american countries!

so you'd approve of a socialist dictator nationalizing key industries and shutting down television stations in Puerto Rico?

Sgt Schultz
06-13-2007, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Since every Iraqi we kill pisses off another 10-20 Iraqis, I fail to see how the body count is really that great of a metric for our success. Especially considering we were there to defeat saddam's forces and liberate the Iraqi people.

Now we're supposed to be happy about how many Iraqis are killed?

Considering that these insurgents try to blend in to the population, how are we to know for sure which people that got blown to bits in an airstrike or cut to pieces with a 50mm were actually terrorists?

Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.

OD I think you are one of the few "left-leaning" reasonable people here and I respect you. Using reason, logic, history etc. with others around here seems to be a waste of time.

The insurgent/terrorist body count is long overdue because all we are treated to every day is the American body count - which everyone accepts as accurate. If all you hear of is how many American soldiers are being killed in combat, while never hearing of any insurgent/terrorist KIAs year after year it's not surprising that people feel discouraged. This is exactly what the press and the left wants.

What we don't know is how many of the insurgents/terrorists killed are Iraqi. Sunni/Ba'athists, Sunnis targeting Shia, and Iraqis who have joined al Qaeda are all legitimate targets. We don't know what percentage are fighters coming in from many other countries.

There are sources out there that do count the Iraqi civilian deaths - but most of these are caused by terrorists - not Americans.

In just one article linked and used as a source (anyone out there actually read one?) they went into detail about how they knew the insurgents/terrorists were in a vehicle but they waited until the vehicle was away from a populated area before attacking them. There's no argument from me that civilians are being killed by Americans in the war. Compare the current civilian deaths to the civilian deaths in our "good" and "noble" war, WWII. There is no comparison.

Ever since the notorious Vietnam body counts (blood trails, drag marks etc) the U.S. Military, press, and public have been skeptical regarding body counts, with reason. However, this is no longer the case. Vastly differing terrain and the different nature of the conflicts Vietnam vs Iraq also mean that you cannot compare Vietnam body counts vs Iraq body counts.

The point of the original post - if we all trust the sources being used for US casualty figures then we should do the same for insurgent / terrorist KIA figures. The press has NOT been doing that for the entire war because it didn't fit with how they wanted to report the war - that being, in a negative light. Deaths on both sides should be reported, information should not be withheld.

DrMaddVibe
06-13-2007, 06:22 PM
Rosie says its closer to 250,000.

frod believes him!

Angel
06-13-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
the invaders are US, british and others. The insurgents are iraqis, saudis, syrian, IRANIANS, and other a-rabs

How many of those others were coerced into the "coalition of the 'willing'"? The insurgents wouldn't be there if the US hadn't gone in. Why is it okay for the US to have a multi-national force, but those fighting to get the invaders out of their country can't?


that's fine unless their problems involve housing or enabling international terrorists

Don't forget to mention that those terrorists got INTO Iraq in the first place because of the opportunity the US presented when they went in there!

ODShowtime
06-14-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OD I think you are one of the few "left-leaning" reasonable people here and I respect you. Using reason, logic, history etc. with others around here seems to be a waste of time.

The insurgent/terrorist body count is long overdue because all we are treated to every day is the American body count - which everyone accepts as accurate. If all you hear of is how many American soldiers are being killed in combat, while never hearing of any insurgent/terrorist KIAs year after year it's not surprising that people feel discouraged. This is exactly what the press and the left wants.

What we don't know is how many of the insurgents/terrorists killed are Iraqi. Sunni/Ba'athists, Sunnis targeting Shia, and Iraqis who have joined al Qaeda are all legitimate targets. We don't know what percentage are fighters coming in from many other countries.

There are sources out there that do count the Iraqi civilian deaths - but most of these are caused by terrorists - not Americans.

In just one article linked and used as a source (anyone out there actually read one?) they went into detail about how they knew the insurgents/terrorists were in a vehicle but they waited until the vehicle was away from a populated area before attacking them. There's no argument from me that civilians are being killed by Americans in the war. Compare the current civilian deaths to the civilian deaths in our "good" and "noble" war, WWII. There is no comparison.

Ever since the notorious Vietnam body counts (blood trails, drag marks etc) the U.S. Military, press, and public have been skeptical regarding body counts, with reason. However, this is no longer the case. Vastly differing terrain and the different nature of the conflicts Vietnam vs Iraq also mean that you cannot compare Vietnam body counts vs Iraq body counts.

The point of the original post - if we all trust the sources being used for US casualty figures then we should do the same for insurgent / terrorist KIA figures. The press has NOT been doing that for the entire war because it didn't fit with how they wanted to report the war - that being, in a negative light. Deaths on both sides should be reported, information should not be withheld.

I respect you as well, even though you are a weird motherfucker.

I DON'T trust the US soldier body count. I'm not positive, and too lazy to check, but I'm pretty sure if you make it back to the central hospital, you don't count as a combat death. I know if you get to Germany and die on the operating table, it doesn't count.

And all deaths from accidents caused by riding around in helicopters and shooting mortars and what not don't count either.

There's gotta be at least 10,000 dead US soldiers, sailers, and Marines that have perished as a direct result of this clusterfuck, and that doesn't even count the US contractors.

I just can't get excited about killing Iraqi's who are fighting for their freedom. It's not their fault that they were ruled by a vicicous dictator. Judging by the demographics over there, few were alive before saddam consolidated power.

ODShowtime
06-14-2007, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Angel
How many of those others were coerced into the "coalition of the 'willing'"? The insurgents wouldn't be there if the US hadn't gone in. Why is it okay for the US to have a multi-national force, but those fighting to get the invaders out of their country can't?



Don't forget to mention that those terrorists got INTO Iraq in the first place because of the opportunity the US presented when they went in there!

Who do you think you're typing to? Do you pay attention in here?

I'm just straightening out that viva chavez joker.

DEMON CUNT
06-14-2007, 12:30 AM
"Sgt" Schultz is tossing out these numbers to show us just how "cost effective" he feels the occupation really is. This to him is some way to gauge the success of the occupation.

I love how he vilifies the very media that spent thousands of hours in air time to sell the "war" to dummies just like him.

Treating these figures like video game scores, as "Sgt" Schultz has here, displays the conservative's ability to callously politicize a pile of dead human bodies as a means to make one's point.

It's pathetic.

DEMON CUNT
06-14-2007, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Rosie says its closer to 250,000.


The obsession continues.

Angel
06-14-2007, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Who do you think you're typing to? Do you pay attention in here?

I'm just straightening out that viva chavez joker.

and I enjoy playing devils advocate :D

TongueNGroove
06-15-2007, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Satan
So......

6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)

out of 650,000 civillians.

Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones". :rolleyes:

Are you just uninformed or just a blind liberal? Most of the "insurgents" are from other countries like Syria and Iran. The ones who come from Iraq are Sadam's old butt buddies who are now no longer allowed to oppress the other civilians and have to give up the power they once had.

Hey, if I was a psycho child molester like Mohammad or I believed that oppressing women and denying freedom of other religeons was my "God"'s will, or if I was so pussy hungry and a pedophile that I believed I was going to get to play with virgin cunts for eternity if I blew myself up, then I would be over there bombing our soldiers too....fortunately I actually have some common sense.

But you go right on ahead and defend these depraved lunatic bastards all you want, you fit right in with them.

Nickdfresh
06-16-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
...
I love how he vilifies the very media that spent thousands of hours in air time to sell the "war" to dummies just like him.
...

Exactly! Where was the criticism when the media was essentially a big, embedded bunch of fucking cheerleaders as things were going well on the rush to Baghdad?

BTW, I've seen plenty of stories relating that we're killing more insurgents than they are our boys and girls.

But what is the fucking point of it? Is this still the same fraudulent that "we're fighting them over there instead of here" bullshit?

'Cause I'm pretty sure there were not Republican Guards divisions on the Rio Grande in the winter of 2002...

Nickdfresh
06-16-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by TongueNGroove
Are you just uninformed or just a blind liberal? Most of the "insurgents" are from other countries like Syria and Iran.

Actually, TongueNAss, only SEVEN PERCENT of Iraqi insurgents are "foreign fighters."

Try reading a little more often, and beLIEving bullshitting pundits less...

TongueNGroove
06-16-2007, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, TongueNAss, only SEVEN PERCENT of Iraqi insurgents are "foreign fighters."

Try reading a little more often, and beLIEving bullshitting pundits less...

Well here is one article I managed to read that says 70% of insurgents captured are foriegn. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-23-insurgents-arabs_N.htm

Also, lets not forget where these insurgents wether foreign or Iraqi are getting their missles, guns and bullets etc.. Iran and Syria are playing major factors in this war.

FORD
06-16-2007, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by TongueNGroove
Iran and Syria are playing major factors in this war.

Says who?

The same fucking Likud Zionfascist pieces of shit who lied us into this war in the first place?

They have less credibility than Chimp himself.

"From the Nile to the Euphrates" is all that matters to those god damnable sons of treasonous bitches and they don't care about this country, only their own. Fucking deport every last one of those "dual citizenship" warmongering shitbags.

Nickdfresh
06-16-2007, 06:42 PM
And an Iraqi "intelligence officer" said so, eh?

Um dude, US intelligence says that only 7% are non-Iraqi. Whatever...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/wirq04.xml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm

and this:

From tomorrow's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502078.html
)



As for al-Qaeda: True, its Iraqi branch has established a stronghold in Anbar province, and trained fighters from Iraq are, predictably, returning to their home countries, hardened by combat and looking for blood. But thus far, the chief jihadist threat to the West continues to emanate from Pakistan, not Iraq. The proportion of foreign fighters in the insurgents' ranks is smaller than ever -- perhaps 10 percent of the total number of Sunni combatants. Moreover, al-Qaeda's Iraqi forces are already under pressure, not just from the United States but also from other Sunni leaders jealously guarding their own turf. And beyond all that, it's simply too late to stop jihadist blowback from Iraq, which will persist regardless of whether U.S. forces remain.

Sgt Schultz
06-23-2007, 10:29 PM
U.S. Forces continue to decimate enemy in Iraq

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_1.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_2.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_3.jpg

DoD Press Briefing with Lt. Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3973)

Redballjets88
06-23-2007, 10:33 PM
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

matt19
06-24-2007, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

Wow thats a very liberal response of you. ;)

Redballjets88
06-24-2007, 01:53 AM
yeah see im not an idiotic neocon like people portray me

matt19
06-24-2007, 01:58 AM
Sometimes you really support their views.

Redballjets88
06-24-2007, 02:02 AM
the times in which i "support" their views are in threads about very controversial topics, such as palestians vs israelis.

matt19
06-24-2007, 02:03 AM
I guess.

Redballjets88
06-24-2007, 02:08 AM
lets see
im against the war in iraq, its pointless for us to have gone there in the first place.

im for stem cell research

i vote independent

bush is an idiot

so i dont see why im seen in such a shitty light.

matt19
06-24-2007, 02:11 AM
Ok calm down there chief.

Redballjets88
06-24-2007, 02:24 AM
im calm big guy no worries

Nickdfresh
06-24-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
U.S. Forces continue to decimate enemy in Iraq

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_1.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_2.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x259/sgtschultz_2007/briefing_3.jpg

DoD Press Briefing with Lt. Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3973)

They do? But the funny thing is "sgt" is that the insurgents just keep operating with virtual impunity, and have inflicted far more casualties on BOTH US and "Iraqi" forces and allied militias....

So, what is the criteria for success here?

Nickdfresh
06-24-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

And if "body count" is an indicator of victory, then we won Vietnam!

Log off and read more!

Sgt Schultz
06-24-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And if "body count" is an indicator of victory, then we won Vietnam!

Log off and read more!

OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

Petroleum Nasby
06-24-2007, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

Ah beleeve yer figgerun is flawed suh. As all good and true Demikrats knows we uns alwis counts thu sahvillyans in any proper bodee countin a war (at leest when it benifuts us pulitikally). When the tallyatin' is done you shall see that the South lost many more peeple to Linkun's war than the north.

Then as now we must see thru this transparint atemt by a corupt Reepublikan to subjigate a free luving people fer hiz own par.

DEMON CUNT
06-24-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

Hey "sgt", what do you wish to accomplish with this thread?

Nickdfresh
06-24-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.

What is relevant is that you're NOT discussion IRAQI "bodycounts."

...As in deaths of Iraqi police, soldiers, militia forces, and innocent civilians murdered by death squads, bombings, or by collateral damage, in which case the "Coalition" would actually have MORE casualties than the Sunni insurgents...

Secondly, what's the correlation between "securing Iraq" (the supposed nebulous and diffuse criteria for victory) and deaths of Iraqi insurgents (which may or may not be politically exaggerated as was the case in Vietnam)?

Apparently, there is NO correlation, since Iraq is a spire flowing increasingly towards anarchy and civil war...

And 85 US troops have died in June of this year. In June 2006, it was 63. In June of 2005, it was 85 (for the total month, we're not done with this one yet). In June of 2004, it was 50! And in June of 2003, we lost 36 service members...

Source. (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

So by your own criteria, the US is losing in Iraq...

Nickdfresh
06-24-2007, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Hey "sgt", what do you wish to accomplish with this thread?

I think he wants to reenact the Vietnam War by holding "Saigon press conferences" in which the Army lies its ass off by telling everybody that supposed enemy deaths are a sign of progress (despite numerous secret memos the later surfaced that they knew the opposite was in fact true)...

Hence: "Body count."

Petroleum Nasby
06-24-2007, 11:31 AM
My esteemd kaleeg Mr. Fresh is kerekt.

Keepin a leger of the so-calld "terrist" kilt on the feeld uv battul is no way to no if the Yangkey oppressirs ar sukseeding in this war.

Thee only way to no if'n Bushes soljers are a'winnin' iz to keep a gud tallee of how manee of them git kilt.

Nickdfresh
06-24-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Petroleum Nasby
My esteemd kaleeg Mr. Fresh is kerekt.

Keepin a leger of the so-calld "terrist" kilt on the feeld uv battul is no way to no if the Yangkey oppressirs ar sukseeding in this war.

Thee only way to no if'n Bushes soljers are a'winnin' iz to keep a gud tallee of how manee of them git kilt.

:rolleyes:

Nice fucking alias...

Riffing off RedballsJoke now "sgt" Schiestkampf?

DEMON CUNT
06-24-2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think he wants to reenact the Vietnam War by holding "Saigon press conferences" in which the Army lies its ass off by telling everybody that supposed enemy deaths are a sign of progress...

Right. Never mind the fact that these numbers represent actual human beings. Never mind the fact that each one of these bodies represents a group of mourning and angry friends and families.

Right wing sociopaths like "Sgt" Slutz love to treat these numbers like ball game scores to demonstrate some state of victory or indicate some kind of progress.

The undeveloped mind of a conservative is fueled largely by by pride and bravado. Any real logic or empathy have no value in the reptilian brain of a warmonger.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4776/hannityom1.jpg

Petroleum Nasby
06-24-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Right. Never mind the fact that these numbers represent actual human beings. Never mind the fact that each one of these bodies represents a group of mourning and angry friends and families.

Right wing sociopaths like "Sgt" Slutz love to treat these numbers like ball game scores to demonstrate some state of victory or indicate some kind of progress.

The undeveloped mind of a conservative is fueled largely by by pride and bravado. Any real logic or empathy have no value in the reptilian brain of a warmonger.



Mr. Cunt is correct. Onlee a durn Rpublikin with War Feever would stupe so low as to keep a kount of ded bodees to futher hiz pulitikal vyews.

DEMON CUNT
06-24-2007, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Petroleum Nasby
Mr. Cunt is correct. Onlee a durn Rpublikin with War Feever would stupe so low as to keep a kount of ded bodees to futher hiz pulitikal vyews.

http://www.shortandhappy.com/images/jerkoff.gif

matt19
06-24-2007, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Petroleum Nasby
Mr. Cunt is correct. Onlee a durn Rpublikin with War Feever would stupe so low as to keep a kount of ded bodees to futher hiz pulitikal vyews.

Oh great, a Thome clone. :rolleyes:

FORD
06-25-2007, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war

Some would say the South DID win the Civil War. It just took 100 years longer.

matt19
06-25-2007, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Some would say the South DID win the Civil War. It just took 100 years longer.

I've never thought of it that way but now that I do it seems true.

Redballjets88
06-25-2007, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Some would say the South DID win the Civil War. It just took 100 years longer.

how so? no states rights. no slavery. just asking?

Petroleum Nasby
06-25-2007, 03:22 PM
The South did indeed win thu Wa, jus lak the brayv freedum fiyters in I-Rak wil win.

If'n the Demokratt MukKleland had wun the lekshun in '64 (a man you uns amember that had millutaree xpeeryunse unlike the chikun-hawk-ape Linkun) The Bucher Grant wouldn't have kilt all them blu-bellees and sutherners at Peeterzberg fer nuthin. Then az now a rupublikkan noz nuthin 'cept spillin blood fer no gud reezun cuz eevun tho Lee kappichulated and the carpetbaggerz came the south overcame n conkerd with Jim Cro. The 'sivil rat akt' wernt voted by any demikkrats ahundrit yeerz later. Hek, we unz stil got a klu klux klan Demmikrrat Seniter tu this day.

So Msrrs. Ford (i namet my sun Ford on account of the bit of grand theeater at Ford's Theeatur) and Mat r kurekt, the south won; an us Dimikratz will mek sher Bush wont win thiz un eether.

Nickdfresh
06-25-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Petroleum Nasby
The South did indeed win thu Wa, jus lak the brayv freedum fiyters in I-Rak wil win.

If'n the Demokratt MukKleland had wun the lekshun in '64 (a man you uns amember that had millutaree xpeeryunse unlike the chikun-hawk-ape Linkun) The Bucher Grant wouldn't have kilt all them blu-bellees and sutherners at Peeterzberg fer nuthin. Then az now a rupublikkan noz nuthin 'cept spillin blood fer no gud reezun cuz eevun tho Lee kappichulated and the carpetbaggerz came the south overcame n conkerd with Jim Cro. The 'sivil rat akt' wernt voted by any demikkrats ahundrit yeerz later. Hek, we unz stil got a klu klux klan Demmikrrat Seniter tu this day.

So Msrrs. Ford (i namet my sun Ford on account of the bit of grand theeater at Ford's Theeatur) and Mat r kurekt, the south won; an us Dimikratz will mek sher Bush wont win thiz un eether.

http://www.stukamilitary.com/images/schultz.JPG

Is this what passes for comedy in your little world?

DEMON CUNT
06-30-2007, 02:38 PM
Imagine, Bush sends in more troops and more end up dead. Seriously, who didn't see this coming?

++++

AP: Iraq ambush caps bloodiest months for US (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 29, 7:52 PM ET

BAGHDAD - A huge bomb explosion followed by a hail of gunfire and grenades killed five U.S. soldiers, the military said Friday. The attack climaxed the deadliest three-month period for the Americans since the war began.

Those deaths brought to 99 the number of U.S. troops killed this month, according to an Associated Press count. The toll for the past three months — 329 — made it the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005.

More...

Nickdfresh
06-30-2007, 03:19 PM
But Sgt. Schultz says it's okay, because a soldier slipped on some soap and died of a brain hemorrhage in 1983...

Baby's On Fire
08-01-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OK, so according to you a "body count" is no longer relevant now that we are discussing enemy body counts vs U.S. body counts.


There are a lot more towel-headed, Allah-worshipping assholes than there are US troops.

So statistically, the USA cannot win.

Dwell on that as the body count rises..