It wouldn’t surprise me if the US had used what would unquestionably be called terror tactics at some time in the past. If you think you have linked to an act of terror, quote the part that proves it or lay out your case.
Actually, I’m just looking for the numbers; not a debate on tactics.
The Bush administration killed [How many?] terrorists.
The Obama administration has killed [How many?] terrorists.
“Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army” is what it boils down to.
John’s point was about the definition of terrorist. I agree with him that those involved in the public execution of journalists are good candidates.
Also, not every terrorist actively commits acts of terror. Those who support terror, those who are in training to commit terrorist acts, the bomb makers, the trainers, all should count.
One more point - maybe we should also consider the problem of creating terrorists by attacking those who were apathetic before. Killing 500 terrorists is better than killing a thousand while creating 2,000.
By your definition, American drone attacks would be terrorism.
I don’t think so, but if you prefer, we could could amend that to say the violence needs to “specifically single out civilians as targets because they are civilians”. That is to say: targeting a school because it is a school as opposed to because it is being used as a base to launch attacks.
You really don’t look like you make this up as you go along.
I didn’t know people still propagated that school line so long after timed firings became commonplace #welcometothe90s
I think everyone understands the question I’m asking.
An yet no one has answered it. 
To be honest, I’m not sure how one would even go about answering it. I suspect this thread will get moved to GD or IMHO at some point.
Trying to rope this somehow back to GQ, Wikipedia refers to estimate that between 2003 and 2009, about 26,000 insurgents were killed in Iraq by coalition forces. The article also accounts estimates of roughly 1,500 insurgents killed from 2009 to be withdrawal of US forces. So, by those notoriously unreliable numbers, Bush has got Obama beat by a huge margin.
I’ve never seen anything that approaches that kind of detail for Afghanistan. I’ve seen estimates that 30,000 Taliban have been killed since 2001, but no further details. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rate of Taliban deaths have escalated over the years, but I can’t find hard numbers for that.
That’s the problem-- sorting out “terrorists” from “insurgents”. I don’t see how we can hope to do that, especially in Iraq.
I don’t think the OP is trying to nail down specific numbers in insurgents, unprivileged combatants, illegal combatants, guerrillas, terrorists, civilian-killing freedom fighters, homicide bombers, suicide bombers, or miscellaneous non-uniformed bad guys. Though if anyone hs those statistucs…
That is correct.
By that I mean Osama Bin Laden, no need for a cite in regards to him being the most wanted terror suspect by the United States, or in the world. Especially since September 2001, and he was wanted prior in connection to the Embassy Bombings in Africa in 1998. So under Bill Clinton also; no other person was more sought out than Bin Laden. He was captured and killed under Obama’s watch.
So the most wanted terrorist was killed under Obama.
As for the number of terrorists, hard to say. Let’s say 50 people were killed in a drone strike in Pakistan or Yemen, how many were known, proven terrorists and how many are innocent people?
Hard to tell, have terrorists been killed under both men yes, but hard to say and quantify exactly who killed more.
You wrote “more prominent terrorists” (plural) not “the most prominent terrorist”. That was the cite I was looking for. “More prominent terrorists”.