A Standford University and New York University research supports the accuracy of this Bureau of Investigative Journalism report as well.A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, released 4 February 2012, stated that from under the Obama administration (2008–2011) drone strikes killed between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 children.
And that's not even including the unicorns that may have been killed.
*Mimes jerk off motion*
A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!
I don't hestitate admit I have no sound idea of how many innocents were killed.
---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 11:54 PM ----------
Are you asserting that drones target civilians and than declair them terrorist? Because that's bullshit...
There is a great deal of inconsistency with the data that is being reported. Mother Jones for example, states that the success rate is 2%, with a combattant death count of "1061 to 1584" out of "1,372 and 2,12", resulting in a civilian, or non-combatant, death rate of ~25%. Their 2% statistic is derived from the percentage of attacks that went after high value targets and suceeded.
The site DoD Buzz, which one would assume as being for innovative military measures like unmaned drones, posted a scathing article on the innefectiveness of the drones. I take issue with their reporting, however, as they cite the 2% statistic as being the number of combatants killed, with the other 98% that were killed being non-combatants, which is misleading. They're only non-combatants insofar as not being people in positions of power within their military structure.
The people of Pakistan are, according to all that I could find, against the drones strikes because of their high civilian death count. There are sites that try to explain why the numbers appear as skewed as they are, and I gather that it is due to differing definitions of what is and is not a civilian.
I can't really make a claim one way or another. The conflicting data leaves me unsatisfied, though I feel more compelled to side with the people on the receiving end than the people launching the strikes, if only because they probably know what's going on better than anybody else.
If there's anything to take away from this, is that you shouldn't take that link I posted to be definitive proof. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, leaving the waters quite murky.
The number of civilians killed flactuates on knowing and trusting the intelligence gathered that lead to the strike. If you think US government has no credible evidence on any of the targets, you can claim 100% of those killed were civilians.
Drones are better than all out war, but how many things can you think of that are actually worse than war?
Samuel L. Jackson To Voters: 'Wake The up and vote for Obama
I gotta say I kinda agree with the message.
I understand that this is common knowledge, but I feel it is pertinent to the conversation. We shouldn't forget that there are still people guiding these drones. How Stuff Works has an article detailing how these drones operate.
And for some reasoning my spellcheck isn't working.
well yes. it just seems like a lot if this is kneeherk reactions. "Innocents get killed by drones, drones are bad!" they also get killed in raids, in invasions, and in wars. more than with drones i would imagine. maybe if we offer bigger bounties on the terrorists they'll turn themselves in like that one guy?For me, it's that drones are a lot better than all out war for the US. I'm under no delusion that they're better for the people that get hit though. I absolutely would advocate for making very damned sure we're hitting the right people, to the best of our abilities.
---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 04:22 PM ----------
Does 9/11 that not count as an attack on our land?