Who has killed more terrorists?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Seriously look at the Obama body count, which above all includes bin Laden, and yet is still growing. The absurd idea that Bush did a better job "keeping us safe" pushed by low energy loser moron Jeb! is looking more and more ridiculous with the growth of ISIS that he's basically responsible for, yet while Obama is killing Jihadi John and that guy in Libya.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I don't understand how you can celebrate the killing of terrorists like this and then claim people who support executing serial killers and child rapists is barbaric and only satisfying their "bloodlust."

[Lyin' Steve]

It's a tough question.
Obama has way better technology.  Drones have been knocking down terrorist leaders like bowling pins.
On the other hand, Bush had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.  He also had a lot more targets.  Obama only now has a large force to fight against with ISIS, but he doesn't seem interested in taking out large groups of ISIS terrorists, only the leaders.
I'd guess Bush.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In the ratio of terrorist:innocent, Obama wins.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It doesn't really matter either way.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's a classic partisan move to shift the narrative by saying "my guy is so good he even does your guy's aims better than him!" See "Obama has deported more illegals than..." and "DCam has increased NHS funds while Labour privatised them..."

Good tactic, but can end up looking a bit absurd if you rely on it too much.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I don't understand how you can celebrate the killing of terrorists like this and then claim people who support executing serial killers and child rapists is barbaric and only satisfying their "bloodlust."

(I'm I'm anti death penalty for, and this includes extrajudicial ones)

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't understand how you can celebrate the killing of terrorists like this and then claim people who support executing serial killers and child rapists is barbaric and only satisfying their "bloodlust."

(I'm I'm anti death penalty for, and this includes extrajudicial ones)

"Extrajudicial killings" is just the term bleeding hearts use for war. During WWII, should we have tried to arrest all the Nazis at Normandy? Should Lincoln have tried to arrest all the Confederates at Gettysburg? 

[Bismarck]

The amount of terrorist killed in the wars is unquestionably higher than those killed in Obama's drone strikes and half hearted bombing campaigns. Although as a few have pointed out Obama might be more efficient at it.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

In terms of sheer numbers, Bush. Obama is probably more effective at killing high-ranking terrorists, but he didn't build that apparatus on his own - the intelligence departments did, largely under Bush.

[Famous Mortimer]

So basically if it's Bush, he did it only because he was president right after 9/11. Not because of any skill of his own.

[angus]

Really BRTD? 

My guy kills more people than your guy, nya nya nya. 

This is your Hipster Christian value system?

[Lief 🗽]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I want Lief to be the next SecDef or National Security advisor.   He redefines the word Hawk.

[The_Doctor]

I have to admit, I'm pretty onboard with the Obama foreign policy. He definitely is a much more effective president in killing terrorists than George W. Bush. Not only is he willing to use drones to rain hell on them, I'm pleased that he doesn't have any compunction in using secret operations to infiltrate and cause havoc. He's highly efficient and I give him mad props for a very effective foreign policy. I do disagree at the corners of Obama's anti-terrorism foreign policy (I would call it a war on radical Islam) but I would not in general say it's ineffective or weak. He has been effective in limiting the debate on the war on terror to killing terrorists rather than getting hung up on boots on the ground in Syria, etc. He also has continued many Bush-era policies on the war on Terror and I'm pleased by that too.

He's a pretty good president on the issues of foreign policy. So the answer is Obama.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

[bedstuy]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

It's the difference between self-defense and punishment.

Terrorists are actively killing people.  It's the same rationale as self-defense.  We're protecting ourselves by using our military to fight back.  It's different when you've already arrested someone and convicted them.  Then, it's the choice between prison and the death sentence.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

It's the difference between self-defense and punishment.

Terrorists are actively killing people.  It's the same rationale as self-defense.  We're protecting ourselves by using our military to fight back.  It's different when you've already arrested someone and convicted them.  Then, it's the choice between prison and the death sentence.

This is correct.  If, for example, you see or are the victim of a rape or murder in progress and you stop it by killing the perpetrator... that is considered self defense and you will not be locked away as a murderer.  

Things shouldn't be compared only at face value.

[Goldwater]

I want Lief to be the next SecDef or National Security advisor.   He redefines the word Hawk.

Indeed. Of course, I wouldn't trust him on anything outside of foreign policy.

[angus]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

My sarcasm meter might be a little dysfunctional, but I had assumed it was sarcasm on Leif's part.  Or at least dark humor.  Either way, it is certainly not the case that all religions endorse vendetta.

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure Dubya nor Obama have ever killed anybody.  Laura did once though!


You may now return to arguing about which mediocre (at best) President was better at telling the military who and when to kill.

[Figueira]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

To play devil's advocate, killing people in a war can be necessary in a way that the death penalty isn't.

[RINO Tom]

I would hope that all faiths value killing terrorist scumbags with drone missiles, angus.

Just asking why that's so different from valuing killing remorseless serial killers and child rapists, something death penalty opponents characterize as people's "blood lust."

To play devil's advocate, killing people in a war can be necessary in a way that the death penalty isn't.

That's true, but droning isn't a "necessity," it is our (very reasonable and justified, IMO) intentional, effort-filled response to them attacking us.  A rather coherent argument can be made that a "remorseless serial killer" is making a rather similar attack on the civilized world and deserves the same punishment.