3 ms·

> The site doesn’t differentiate between terrorists and civilians killed It does[0]. > It’s not like Pakistan is running low on terrorists or the state intell

> The site doesn’t differentiate between terrorists and civilians killed It does[0]. > It’s not like Pakistan is running low on terrorists or the state intelligence service ISI isn’t sponsoring their activities. I don't know how to respond to that, since there isn't a question in there, just a belligerent statement. I suppose the best way is to simply not engage. [0]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/definitions.html http://pakistanbodycount.org/definitions.html

waffle_ss 7y ago
I saw the definitions page but my point is about the tally number which seems to be conflating everything together[1] (adding dead terrorists into the tally), which I think is disingenuous. Compared to, for example, https://www.iraqbodycount.org https://www.iraqbodycount.org, which only counts civilian deaths (which I assume based on the name is the inspiration for this page). [1]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack.php http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack.php
- amingilani 7y ago
  True, and I don't know what the rationale behind their specific motivation is, but if I were to make a website, I'd do the same. That's not to say that they shouldn't be more transparent about their methodology. The truth of the matter is that there's very little known about the people that actually die in these strikes. There is a fair amount of confusion on whether the deaths reported to be terrorists are actually terrorists. Some say they are not especially since the dead are never charged. There are also reports that the Pakistani military straight-up calls civilians terrorists[0] but these are heavily contested by the military[1] itself. If you had a dataset which was heavily reported to be mislabelled, what would you do? Personally, I'd do the same but perhaps add a better explanation. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48139648 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48139648 [1]: https://www.dawn.com/news/1486313 https://www.dawn.com/news/1486313

waffle_ss 7y ago

I saw the definitions page but my point is about the tally number which seems to be conflating everything together[1] (adding dead terrorists into the tally), which I think is disingenuous. Compared to, for example, https://www.iraqbodycount.org https://www.iraqbodycount.org, which only counts civilian deaths (which I assume based on the name is the inspiration for this page). [1]: http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack.php http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack.php

amingilani 7y ago
True, and I don't know what the rationale behind their specific motivation is, but if I were to make a website, I'd do the same. That's not to say that they shouldn't be more transparent about their methodology. The truth of the matter is that there's very little known about the people that actually die in these strikes. There is a fair amount of confusion on whether the deaths reported to be terrorists are actually terrorists. Some say they are not especially since the dead are never charged. There are also reports that the Pakistani military straight-up calls civilians terrorists[0] but these are heavily contested by the military[1] itself. If you had a dataset which was heavily reported to be mislabelled, what would you do? Personally, I'd do the same but perhaps add a better explanation. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48139648 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48139648 [1]: https://www.dawn.com/news/1486313 https://www.dawn.com/news/1486313