@deviatar @BartHKreps I am not addressing what targeting rules US should follow--but how media organizations should count civilian deaths.
@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. -
@emptywheel Now I think we are talking past one another. US Gov has ALWAYS said it does not target civilians who are not DPH. -
@benjaminwittes And USG has provably lied in its public statements abt drone targeting. Why do you treat them as credible?
End of conversation
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.