U.S. Dropped 23,144 Bombs on Muslim-Majority Countries in 2015

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BiffWellington
Way to show your anti-American bias. I notice you don't include the figures for the number of bombs dropped on the United States by muslim countries in 2015.

How convenient you left that information out.

What none?

If they had the capability, the number would be every bomb they could get ahold of.

3 of the top ten largest air forces on earth belong to Muslim states, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey. You add in the Saudi''s, Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf States and you have the capability plus nukes. So stop with the nonsense of trying to lump Muslims all together in one group. It is dishonest and comes off as ill informed.

As for the OP in the case of Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan those bombings are to defend and on behalf Muslim Governments. Although it does make anybody who thinks Obama is a Muslim and has pro Muslim agenda look like a complete idiot.

Those are all allies. If they fall to Islamic State all their weaponry magically switches sides, something they excel at under Obama's watch.

Oh so now it is ISIS and not Muslims? And when was the last time ISIS captured any weapons, kind of hard to do while your retreating all the time. Maybe that is why ISIS mostly uses Russian and Chinese weapons.

a reply to: Daedal

And we gave $35 Billion in Foreign Aid.

Fine with me no more bombs and no more aid

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That number needs more zeros at the end of it, and a new commander in chief behind them.

First thing I was thinking when I read the OP!

If they used nuclear weapons they could actually hit some targets. Everyone knows that's where it's all going anyway. Once the Muslims get the bomb and use it (and they most probably will) then all bets are off and using nukes will then be a new way of life.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That number needs more zeros at the end of it, and a new commander in chief behind them.

First thing I was thinking when I read the OP!

This place is looking more 'stormfrontesque' every single day.

This is GREAT news.. Im so upset and saddened it wasn't 23,145

the more of them terrorist gone the better

Same people demonizing the US for dropping bombs in muslim countries are praising Russia for bombing the living crap out of ISIS.......in Muslim countries and calling them Heroes

Hypocritical comparison is Hypocritical

LoveLove,
AlienSupernova

a reply to: AlienSupernova

Are you saying all Muslims are ISIS? The US's hit rate for drone strikes in Pakistan alone is 10 to 1. That means for every terrorist killed in Pakistan there is 10 innocent men women or children killed. That sound good to you?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
63 a day and we still can't defeat ISIS.

Go home, America. You're drunk.

63 a day and they (Muslim Terrorists) have still committed the Paris Massacre, the Charlie Hebdo Shooting, San Bernadino, Tried to murder a cop in Philly, still crushing people with Bulldozers, tying innocents up to power poles and shooting them with a bazooka, shot up an art exhibit in Texas, blew up a Russian Plane over Egypt killing more than 200, have perpetrated an attempted genocide of the Yazidi people, use children to execute 'spies', and committed countless crimes against humanity.

Indeed, 63 a day does not appear to be enough.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: AlienSupernova

Are you saying all Muslims are ISIS? The US's hit rate for drone strikes in Pakistan alone is 10 to 1. That means for every terrorist killed in Pakistan there is 10 innocent men women or children killed. That sound good to you?

That's a bold claim.

Mind citing where you got this number?


Also, if you're upset about that, why don't you go talk to Obama.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: AlienSupernova

Are you saying all Muslims are ISIS? The US's hit rate for drone strikes in Pakistan alone is 10 to 1. That means for every terrorist killed in Pakistan there is 10 innocent men women or children killed. That sound good to you?

please quote where I said anything even close to that, or even eluded to it

Please dont put your own presumptions and assumptions in my mouth, thats a YOU problem not a ME problem

I said exactly what i meant, so you can stop with the projection

Love Love,
AlienSupernova

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Vegemite..

Military operation handing out MRE's to worthy recipients in needy areas..
Obama isn't smart enough to think of that?

a reply to: chuck258

Killing terrorist leaders is difficult, is often ineffective, and can easily backfire. Yet it is one of the United States' few options for managing the threat posed by al Qaeda from its base in tribal Pakistan. By some accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens of lower-ranking and at least 10 mid- and high-ranking leaders from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.

www.brookings.edu...

The problem with the numbers is that they count every male of military age an enemy combatant without actually investigating who they killed

The identities of collateral victims are usually not investigated by US forces, who systematically count each male military-age corpse as an "enemy killed in action" unless there is clear proof to the contrary, as long as the male was in a militant facility at the time.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So in retrospect that is saying if they blow up an entire block to get one guy they count all males of military age on that block as a terrorist killed whether they were or not and never investigate whether they were or not. Skewing the numbers to try and justify it.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Metallicus

Agree, the majority of our taxes go towards the military complex and people complain were spending too much money on programs here at home. A quarter of the military budget could go a long way with helping with problems we face here at home.

This is would be untrue.

The Majority of our TOTAL spending goes in the following order;
1.) Social Security, Unemployment and labor 33.26%
2.) Medicare and Health 27.42%
3.) Military Spending 15.88%

If you are referring to DISCRETIONARY spending then yes the military spending is on top.

www.nationalpriorities.org...

Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be included in those numbers, seeing as they're separate "paid in" programs. I bet those numbers would look different if it was just based on tax revenue spending.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That number needs more zeros at the end of it, and a new commander in chief behind them.

Jesus would be so proud...

a reply to: sosobad

It isn't it no wonder so many are not bothering.
Starting to feel the same way.

a reply to: boymonkey74

It is the reason I took a break a few months ago and it is the reason I logged out for the first time in a month last night, might stick to lurking for a small while again.

a reply to: sosobad
Like I mentioned in my rant yesterday I fear of another holocaust some are calling for it.
Disgusting.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I starred and flagged it yesterday when I seen it but decided to stay out of the conversation when I seen the inevitable "free speech" and "go find a safe space" comments. Just burned out with people hate mongering then stand behind "its my right". Just because they have the right doesn't mean it is right.

a reply to: dogstar23

All taxes are "Paid in", however not all programs funded are used by the population in a "tit for tat" fashion.

I don't know if the list would look different or not, I currently have no reason to believe the list is false. Perhaps you could cite something, that supports the claim?