Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Thought you meant your post. Checking the link, I don't trust (given again, the nature of Yemen) the maximums given. These guys do not seem to give themselves any percentage of error for their reporting, which is suspicious (not in that they are biased or anything, but in their surety. The fog of war exists after all).
EDIT-
The bureau isn't the end all be all of numbers. Do you have multiple sources or you base everything off of one site?
Also, there have been many anecdotal (and again, they are anecdotal because of the dangerous nature of Yemen for the last decade or so) reports of the old government in Sanaa using their position as intelligence providers to have drones (and planes) sent to their enemies rather than AQAP. Indeed, a major reason the Houthis get support from non-Shia against the regime is because they are rather tired of being targetted by the government under the guise of the war on terror.
Using one set of statistics to make a broad claim (one denied by several other sources on otherwise very pro-drone advocates) that the CIA is no worse than the military is just picking a fight for its own sake.
edited 4th Feb '16 4:24:25 PM by FFShinra
EDIT: Sorry, I made a mistake; I said both of those sources agreed with the range of civilian casualties, but the second is actually saying that the Bureau's civilian casualty numbers are overstated.
Civilian casualties are still very low =/= the CIA and the military are equally careful.
edited 4th Feb '16 4:39:49 PM by Nihlus1
You aren't getting my point. Yemen is too chaotic to GET definitive statistics. That includes percentages of error that they give. That you are saying the statistics absolutely absolve the CIA is what I have contention with.
Also, the Pakistani government is not to be trusted with anything it gives period.
edited 4th Feb '16 4:45:32 PM by FFShinra
Again, you have declared the statistics untrustworthy but are unable to offer any actual data to rebut them. So, who's paranoid, exactly?
edited 4th Feb '16 4:51:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Bureau itself explains it better than I can.
And I'm paranoid because RECORDED deaths in the Yemen conflict have not even exceeded 10,000, in a country of similar size, population, and a conflict as intense as the Syrian Civil War, which at this length of time in its conflict was already approaching 20,000 to 30,000 deaths (and that was itself a conservative estimate). The fog of war precludes statistics being accurate at all until after the war, and that too if there are good records to compare to, which is not necessarily the case in Yemen.
Only reason I don't question the Somalia numbers is because the intensity of that conflict is far far less. On the other hand, if Pakistan's numbers are being provided by Islamabad, I can't trust that either because they have been known to fudge numbers to keep the people from rioting in the streets.
I cannot offer "counter" statistics when its the very act of collecting statistics I am questioning. Anecdotal reports, which sadly cannot be confimed, suggest higher casualties than can be reported. The fog of war precludes absolutes, yet Nilhus insists on being absolute.
edited 4th Feb '16 5:09:54 PM by FFShinra
If he is illegible to be President, than he is a also illegible to be Vice-President!
edited 4th Feb '16 5:02:18 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.![]()
Maybe, it's hard to keep track of all of Trump's Statements.
Speaking of debates, the Democrats are gonna have a debate in a hour.
edited 4th Feb '16 5:06:42 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company."Well that doesn't apply to CIA drone strikes."
"Here are statistics proving that civilian casualties from CIA drone strikes are low."
"I need exact dates and places for these strikes".
"Here are the places and dates for the strikes".
"These are all just from one source, I need more sources"
"Okay, here are two other sources saying the same thing"
"Well no numbers can be trusted because we can't be 100% sure that they're 100% accurate".
Those goalposts must be in China by now.
edited 4th Feb '16 5:40:28 PM by Nihlus1
CIA's guide to identify combatants.
- Is related to the target in any way or form? Combatant.
- Did attend social events anywhere near the target? Combatant.
- Got closer less than 50 meters of the target? Combatant.
- Has a funny name I can't pronounce properly and is brown? Combatant.
- Is together with more than 5 of the above in events like marriages, birthday parties and other celebrations? Combatant.
Do you really think I'm serious on that one?
edited 4th Feb '16 5:36:23 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
False, false, false, false, false. See how easy it is to say stuff without evidence?
edited 4th Feb '16 5:35:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
First your statistics DON'T PROVE ANYTHING when the fucking fog of war prevents enough info from even coming in, or did you decide to ignore the link?
And I asked for exact dates and places for the PLANE strikes, so painting it as me moving goalposts is nonsense.
Stop trying to rewrite the narrative as though I've changed my stance. My stance has been the same from the beginning: There is no way to prove those numbers absolutely, nevermind the higher end of the scale, something your source has itself admitted.
And Pakistan won't fudge the numbers up because while they complain and their population hates it, they are willing partners in the drone program. Thats why they fudge them down instead, because otherwise their culpability becomes obvious to their citizenry and they get in trouble.
And what are the other sources other than the Government of Pakistan? Do they have magical access to Balochistan, otherwise closed to ALL reporting? How about Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? FATA? No? Didn't think so. Because NO ONE but the Pakistani military can give information from there.
And I can't offer counter statistics. What statistics would that be, exactly, that wouldn't be countered by my entire premise, that wartime data collection cannot be taken at face value, not because the organizations are incompetant or have an agenda, but because it simply isn't possible while it remains dangerous to researchers in areas that don't do good record keeping? I gave you alternative proof instead, that of the words of the bloody researchers themselves.
![]()
I provided evidence. Read it instead of judging. Not all evidence has to be numbers.
Righting look at the Yemen data we've got
- Confirmed drone strikes: 108-128
- Total killed: 496-729
- Civilians killed: 65-101
- Children killed: 8-9
So that's 10.01% to 22.18% if children are counted separate from civilians and 8.92% to 20.36% if they're counted within civilian numbers already. What are the USAF numbers?
Actually that's just the confirmed civilians numbers, they don't keep numbers on militants. So we've got roughly 10-20% of casualties being civilians and 80-90% being either combatants or unconformable civilians.
edited 4th Feb '16 6:18:30 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
You haven't provided evidence; you have provided anecdotes by people who are no more likely to be trustworthy than your despised "official data".
This topic needs to stop. It wasn't that long ago that we had to ban someone over it.
edited 4th Feb '16 6:34:39 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

edited 4th Feb '16 4:19:22 PM by Nihlus1