Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
That’s what was sued for CNN didn’t want it to go to court so they paid him off. Could be more could be less but it’s defo a shed load of millions.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
That’s what was sued for CNN didn’t want it to go to court so they paid him off. Could be more could be less but it’s defo a shed load of millions.
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
So from what I can ascertain, your statement of “90%” is based on a 5 month period sometime in 2012.
Also, it’s worth noting that the 90% figure is not referencing civilians, but persons who were “not the intended target”. This will be a mixture of (very tragically) some civilians and other unnamed combatants (since most drone strikes are targeted at individuals or small groups of individuals)
NB (since doubtless this will be your next line) I am not defending the US drone program in general. But it has enough problems and negatives without Trumpian rhetoric to make it sound even worse.
well if they’ve settled and it’s more then we deffo don’t want that brief .
Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.
“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.” -article
Now it says in a 5 month period of that operation it’s 90% but over the whole year it says 35 out of 200 there was intended targets. That’s 85% give it take over a full year and a month. And that’s just what’s leaked. It could be much worse that 80 or 90.
Now the people who got wiped out in these illegal wars babies kids and women etc Are you going full right wing and pretend the most of them are bad guys?
How can you have this splitting hair defence on war crimes?
Trying to argue that it could possibly be 80, 70, 60 percent. How is that worth debating?
And it’s not just a dem attack trump is much worse and yes he must be stopped.
Last edited:
So...bring it all back around to Trump
Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
I linked it to trump at the end saying he is has the worse kill rate in my last comment RAF if it’s me you are referring to I don’t wanna get/be on your bad side. Trying to be diplomatic and on topic.
It’s Death 2.0
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
finding it hard to reconcile the text and the source of that tweet tbh - Kristol is, and forever will be, scum
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
Personally think there should be drug tests before people speak at the RNC.
Or at the very least they should have to share
This is what a Trump tenure has brought us to
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
No kidding. I never thought I’d find myself reading a book by Rick Wilson ffs.
It is going to take the CDC years to come back from this as a credible organization
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
Genuinely can’t wait for Harris to tear him in half on the debate stage.
dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
He would never have become a decent human being anyway
Death
I'll take down dat coal powered MG, I tel u Hwat
Perhaps likely. You may have a low opinion of me as I am now but boy o boy was I a dipshid at that age. So ye never know. It’s a cert now.
- Status