3 ms·
You can find this yourself so easily that your question qualifies as sealioning. But here you go anyway: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/05/obamas-most-dange
by mandmandam 4y ago
You can find this yourself so easily that your question qualifies as sealioning.
But here you go anyway: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/05/obamas-most-dangerous-drone-tactic-is-here-to-stay/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/05/obamas-most-dangerous-d...
> “Signature strikes have resulted in large numbers of bystander casualties in Pakistan and Yemen,” Jameel Jaffer, a deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Foreign Policy.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> The numbers are impossible to pin down, given the lack of clear reporting on the ground in places like Pakistan and Yemen.
- mandmandam 4y agoHa, it almost seems like you're saying that since the US doesn't keep good track of how many civilians they've murdered with "signature strikes", no one can claim that "lots of innocent people are dying". Even when many reports and groups say that lots of innocent people are dying, including the article you're quoting. That would by psychotic though, so I'm surely misinterpreting what your actual point is. Care to clarify?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoQuantify how many "lots" are. The parent said the CIA killed "lots" of the wrong people. That is really the only word I take issue with.
- mike00632 4y ago"uncountably high"
- trasz 4y agoIn other words, we can safely assume US doesn’t go murdering people, because they say their own lists of murdered people aren’t kept tidy enough?