4 ms·

I 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 ab

by nan0 10y ago

I 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 ago
How 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 ago
  Wikipedia is fine, but if you think HuffPo is credible you're living on another planet.
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    I said "reasonably." I at least followed the trail to The Intercept and figured the stat was in there somewhere.
- nan0 10y ago
  Again, 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.

by nan0 10y ago

heartsucker 10y ago

How 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 ago
Wikipedia is fine, but if you think HuffPo is credible you're living on another planet.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  I said "reasonably." I at least followed the trail to The Intercept and figured the stat was in there somewhere.
nan0 10y ago
Again, 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.