@deviatar @BartHKreps I am not addressing what targeting rules US should follow--but how media organizations should count civilian deaths.
@benjaminwittes Therefore we should not assume military is always seeing just armed men w/HVTs. Or that HVTs at bases, rather than jirgas.
-
-
@emptywheel That was an example of a situation where count can be hard. it was not meant to be the only example. -
@benjaminwittes Fair enuff. But once you accept lots of strikes involve CIVCAS deemed acceptable, you get into @BartHKreps@deviatar point. -
@emptywheel Agreed. But@deviatar is making more radical point: that must assume body is civilian in absence of very strong proof otherwise. -
@benjaminwittes But your "proof" is not proof. It's associative, when we know US has tolerance for CIVCAS. Like farmer killed in Quso strike -
@emptywheel I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about presumptions in the absence of proof. -
@benjaminwittes But your presumption are not supported by evidence from known strikes. You're presuming stuff USG refuses to share. -
@emptywheel No, not at all. I simply drew a hypothetical in which different ex ante presumptions would lead to very different counts. -
@benjaminwittes What is your basis for that claim? USG has NOT said that publicly, & its public statements are provably false on other pts. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.