Did they mean 'terrorists'?
The General was making an educated SWAG...it's probably a conservative number.
Heaven's going to have to order more virgins.
50,00 insurgents/terrorists/murderers is a good start.
The most interesting comments within this article -
50,000 of these thugs KIA or captured seems a very reasonable number / estimate -
Slight little spelling error there... I like your homepage BTW pretty funny. :D
That is why the MSM does NOT have the common sense, decency or the discipline to REPORT those KILLED in ACTION without combining that report with deaths by natural cause, accident or suicide.
FYI your top link indicates the Wash Post rather than the Times.
That is just deaths on the enemy side in the last 7 months, not the whole two years.
It's far higher than 40-1 Asphalt.
Way to go military!
So the question is, if they're meeting in Jordan or Syria, do we declare those targets off limits like we did during Vietnam? Or are we finally learning after 30-40 years?
Flypaper.
Yeah, but just think of the 100,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians the American Imperial Army killed/slaughtered/tortured/forced to wear panties in the process. /DU mode
50,000 scumbags who won't make it to our shores to commit acts of terror. Funny that seems to be a topic not understood by our friends on the left, the significance made even more relavant and exponential by London's bombing....carried out by a bunch of amateur Pakis.
This country needs to wake up!
Wow. The 50,000 figure just covers the last 6-7 months! We're stomping their ass.
The next 6-7 months should involve selling the heathen nations in the Middle East rum and opium in rolls, then we can send in the missionaries to save whatever sinful souls are left. Of course that idea is absurd - but there was a time when (unhindered by liberals) we were willing to do whatever was necessary.
Just think how many could have been taken out in a flash with one small well placed n-bomb. Sure would beat 7 months.
A. A good start!
I almost had heart failure when I saw this was an article by the WaPo - then my sceptical self clicked on the link -and it's actually Washington Times. Wishful thinking.