An easy way to spot a bullshit article with more concern for their agenda than truth is implying a comparison between numbers that can't be compared. "Meanwhil

An easy way to spot a bullshit article with more concern for their agenda than truth is implying a comparison between numbers that can't be compared. "Meanwhile, only 2 percent of the victims of the American drone war — a body count that now far exceeds the number who died in the World Trade Center — were “high-level militants” and hundreds upon hundreds were civilians." Aside from quibbling with using "victims" to refer to "high-level militants", I would expect similar numbers from any military operation ever. How's this sound "only 2% of the victims of the american invasion of Iwo Jima were field-grade Japanese officers"? Then we see the switch to comparing percentages to raw numbers. American's likely killed significantly more civilians in European bombing campaigns than we did in Hiroshima, but anyone with a shred of moral judgment can differentiate between civilians killed due to proximity to military targets (European bombing) vs. what we would call today state terrorism -- the intent to kill large numbers of civilians at Hiroshima to demonstrate our power. So what percent of those killed in the drone strikes are civilians? To what extent does the military weigh the risk of killing civilians when evaluating potential missions? Is any of this unique to drone strikes? I can't come to any conclusion but that this was just a generic collection of musings to generate outrage. It has nothing to do with Connecticut. It has nothing valuable to say about the ethics of drones. It's just troll baiting.