The use of drone strikes have increased exponentially under the Obama administration, becoming a signature aspect of his incredibly aggressive and reckless foreign policy. And while the president and his advisers defend both their supposed legality and precision while simultaneously bragging when convenient and denying when pressured that the drone program even exists, a closer look at the use of Predator drones tells a very different story.
Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are "significantly and consistently underestimated" by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas."* Jimmy Dore (The Jimmy Dore Show) and Steve Oh (COO of The Young Turks) deliver the sobering statistics of deaths directly caused by drone strikes and what part drones may play in future warfare.
Source TYT/YouTube
Fair Use
9 Comments
YogiPeople love saying Obama is way better than Bush, Obama isn't any different in policy, he just says it nicer.
lantern53says...Maybe he thinks these civilians' chickens have come home to roost.
Trancecoachseems like everyone at TYT goes to the Cenk school of saying "Of course" after every postulation...
Seriously some overexaggerated journalism going on over there.
lurgeedon't drone me bro!
arekinsays...You know, I have often wondered what the death toll from our old Bush/Clinton era bunker busters or cruise missiles would have been. Surely a high yield explosive would have cause more collateral damage, as well as being less precise on targeting.
chingaleraThose bunker bombs are designed to penetrate then explode, not a lotta collateral damage but some (EPW) use a small nuclear detonation focused toward the ground for penetration with conventional explosives in the main warhead. Radiation residuals could be a problem.
You know, I have often wondered what the death toll from our old Bush/Clinton era bunker busters or cruise missiles would have been. Surely a high yield explosive would have cause more collateral damage, as well as being less precise on targeting.
chingaleraPreaching to the small choir here, been saying this since their posts began littering the Videosift landscape. This type sensational, hack-reporting is their stock and trade, and they are very douche, er good at it.
Same ilk and schemata use their formula,from Sharpton, to Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow, Mike Savage....pick your flavor and there's a narcissistic douche-nozzle to satisfy, stroking it just right for your pleasure and somnambulance.
seems like everyone at TYT goes to the Cenk school of saying "Of course" after every postulation...
Seriously some overexaggerated journalism going on over there.
cricket*kill
siftbotPermanently discarding this video - kill requested by cricket.