4 ms·
Educate yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-dea
by heartsucker 10y ago
Educate yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-st...
- toomanythings2 10y agoAnd when the twin towers fell in NYC, were there any innocents involved?
- tP5n 10y agoI remember clearly when we finally drone-bombed the 9/11 attackers to dust, what a glorious day that was. wait, what?
- toomanythings2 10y agoHas nothing to do with the point being made.
- delecti 10y agoWe went after the terrorists who perpetrated 911 because they killed innocent civilians. We have killed many innocent civilians in the process. That is indefensible, no matter our goals.
- toomanythings2 10y agoYou think war is clean and sanitary?
- delecti 10y agoI think that America's anti-terrorism efforts are insufficiently discriminatory (in the sense that they're indiscriminate, not that they're racially discriminatory (which they also are, but for obvious and probably defensible reasons)) when selecting targets. We're probably doing more harm than good by driving innocents caught in the crossfire into the arms of the very anti-American organizations we meant to target.
- nan0 10y agoI don't know how you see this as credible evidence. When she links her evidence of the report to the Intercept it links to another Huffington article talking about the Drone Papers. Could you explain how she came to ninety percent with the Drone Papers ?
- heartsucker 10y agoHow do you see anything as credible evidence unless you saw it yourself? HuffPo is a (reasonbly) credible new source that links to The Intercept that built its articles from the Drone Papers. I didn't go independently verify every fact in every article that contributed to the previous one I linked to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_dr... Here. Is that sufficient, or would you like video evidence of every drone strike along with complete bios on everyone killed including family member testimonies about their selection for assassination?
- umanwizard 10y agoWikipedia is fine, but if you think HuffPo is credible you're living on another planet.
- heartsucker 10y agoI said "reasonably." I at least followed the trail to The Intercept and figured the stat was in there somewhere.
- nan0 10y agoAgain, the first source Wiki provides goes to a 404 page (The Long War Journal). When it elaborates on the Stanford study on the Obama's administration claim on "single digit civilian casualties", it fails to mention that the study was only meant to endorse the Long War Journal's study, not provide the claim wrong. "However, this does not represent new evidence. Stanford and NYU researchers made no attempt to offer new statistical analysis on the number of civilian casualties caused by drones. Rather, their report is essentially an extended endorsement of a database compiled by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism" - foreignpolicy article third source To the last thing you state , yes it shouldn't only be just that, but more evidence. Unfortunately, modern journalism can't provide us with those very important details, instead only off topic sources that really don't care if they are one hundred percent correct.