6 ms·

Here's another nifty visualisation - this time with drone strikes: http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

by imron 10y ago

megous 10y ago
I like the fact that the site includes all killed people. With 20% civilian casualties rate, the recent announcement of 50000 killed people in Syria/Iraq means US may have directly killed 10000 civilians in just the last two years there. https://airwars.org/ https://airwars.org/ reports a lower number though. But theirs is a very conservative estimate. I wonder when will this escalation stop. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-50000-fighters-killed-two-years-iraq-mosul-syria-air-strikes-coalition-us-bombing-battles-a7464501.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-500...
- nl 10y ago
  I don't think you can draw that conclusion. The "50,000 ISIS fighters killed" claim includes all reasons for their deaths, not just US drone/air/special forces. Given the civil war in Syria and the anti-ISIS offensive in Iraq it's likely that the majority of those deaths aren't directly caused by US actions.
- Tepix 10y ago
  What's your source for the 20% civilian casualties rate? According to https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-finally-releases-its-dubious-drone-death-toll/ https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-fin... the numbers published by the Obama administration are "a fraction of even the most conservative estimates on drone-related killings catalogued by reporters and researchers over the same period."
  - 3131s 10y ago
    And that's in part because all males age 18-49 are automatically classified as militants. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-ob...
- mindslight 10y ago
  With so many people around the world needing killing, we should be thankful that Obama was in office. If a Republican was in power, the casualties would have been much worse, probably over ten times!!
  - imron 10y ago
    Except, for the parts of the timeline when there was a Republican in power, the casualties (and drone strikes) were significantly less.
    - tps5 10y ago
      This comment is so incredibly misleading. Predator drones were new in 2001. The idea that it makes sense to directly compare drone use in the Bush administration to drone usage in the Obama administration is just wrong. Furthermore, I never really understood why people focus on drones as particularly egregious. Drones are significantly more accurate than cruise missiles and airstrikes because they can get closer to targets. If you want to question the whole "deliver ordinance to places in which intel suggests there may be 'enemy combatants'" then I'm with you. But that criticism is totally separate from how the ordinance is delivered.
cyberferret 10y ago
That site really drives the tragic results of drone strikes, however from a UX perspective, I wish they would not use a stacked sliding bar for the death count at the top. Seeing the death of children growing at the start is heart wrenching, but as the other values grow, the 'children' bar actually shrinks, devaluing the impact of the tragic toll. Perhaps counters like the "Every Atomic explosion since 1945 video"? [0] Might drive home the point a little better? [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
- loxs 10y ago
  They are getting "better" though. The ratio of civilian deaths seems to go down with the years.
dforrestwilson1 10y ago
The statement that only 2% are high profile targets is kind of misleading. The vetting that goes into assessing whether military age males are actually doing bad things is surprisingly high. I am not saying mistakes were not made. Civilians and kids have died for sure, but the majority of those killed were combatants. Implying otherwise makes me doubt the veracity of the other claims here. Nifty visualization though.
- berdario 10y ago
  Is the vetting truly that high? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list-this-is-what-it-feels-like-to-be-hunted-by-drones-a6980141.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list... From what you write, I understand that you mean mistakes in targeting/dropping bombs, but not mistakes in assessing/choosing the target themselves. Or do you mean otherwise?
  - dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    http://www.npr.org/2012/06/06/154443665/how-the-president-decides-to-make-drone-strikes http://www.npr.org/2012/06/06/154443665/how-the-president-de...
- 3131s 10y ago
  How do you know? Internal documents concerning a five month period of airstrikes in Afghanistan showed that around 90% of individuals killed were not the intended targets.
  - dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    Look at my profile.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      What about it? The SSL certificate on your personal site is broken.

Here's another nifty visualisation - this time with drone strikes: http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

by imron 10y ago

Here's another nifty visualisation - this time with drone strikes: http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

megous 10y ago

I like the fact that the site includes all killed people. With 20% civilian casualties rate, the recent announcement of 50000 killed people in Syria/Iraq means US may have directly killed 10000 civilians in just the last two years there. https://airwars.org/ https://airwars.org/ reports a lower number though. But theirs is a very conservative estimate. I wonder when will this escalation stop. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-50000-fighters-killed-two-years-iraq-mosul-syria-air-strikes-coalition-us-bombing-battles-a7464501.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-500...

nl 10y ago
I don't think you can draw that conclusion. The "50,000 ISIS fighters killed" claim includes all reasons for their deaths, not just US drone/air/special forces. Given the civil war in Syria and the anti-ISIS offensive in Iraq it's likely that the majority of those deaths aren't directly caused by US actions.
Tepix 10y ago
What's your source for the 20% civilian casualties rate? According to https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-finally-releases-its-dubious-drone-death-toll/ https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-fin... the numbers published by the Obama administration are "a fraction of even the most conservative estimates on drone-related killings catalogued by reporters and researchers over the same period."
- 3131s 10y ago
  And that's in part because all males age 18-49 are automatically classified as militants. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-ob...
mindslight 10y ago
With so many people around the world needing killing, we should be thankful that Obama was in office. If a Republican was in power, the casualties would have been much worse, probably over ten times!!
- imron 10y ago
  Except, for the parts of the timeline when there was a Republican in power, the casualties (and drone strikes) were significantly less.
  - tps5 10y ago
    This comment is so incredibly misleading. Predator drones were new in 2001. The idea that it makes sense to directly compare drone use in the Bush administration to drone usage in the Obama administration is just wrong. Furthermore, I never really understood why people focus on drones as particularly egregious. Drones are significantly more accurate than cruise missiles and airstrikes because they can get closer to targets. If you want to question the whole "deliver ordinance to places in which intel suggests there may be 'enemy combatants'" then I'm with you. But that criticism is totally separate from how the ordinance is delivered.

cyberferret 10y ago

That site really drives the tragic results of drone strikes, however from a UX perspective, I wish they would not use a stacked sliding bar for the death count at the top. Seeing the death of children growing at the start is heart wrenching, but as the other values grow, the 'children' bar actually shrinks, devaluing the impact of the tragic toll. Perhaps counters like the "Every Atomic explosion since 1945 video"? [0] Might drive home the point a little better? [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

loxs 10y ago
They are getting "better" though. The ratio of civilian deaths seems to go down with the years.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago

The statement that only 2% are high profile targets is kind of misleading. The vetting that goes into assessing whether military age males are actually doing bad things is surprisingly high. I am not saying mistakes were not made. Civilians and kids have died for sure, but the majority of those killed were combatants. Implying otherwise makes me doubt the veracity of the other claims here. Nifty visualization though.

berdario 10y ago
Is the vetting truly that high? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list-this-is-what-it-feels-like-to-be-hunted-by-drones-a6980141.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list... From what you write, I understand that you mean mistakes in targeting/dropping bombs, but not mistakes in assessing/choosing the target themselves. Or do you mean otherwise?
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  http://www.npr.org/2012/06/06/154443665/how-the-president-decides-to-make-drone-strikes http://www.npr.org/2012/06/06/154443665/how-the-president-de...
3131s 10y ago
How do you know? Internal documents concerning a five month period of airstrikes in Afghanistan showed that around 90% of individuals killed were not the intended targets.
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  Look at my profile.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    What about it? The SSL certificate on your personal site is broken.