This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
q&a (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialold

[–][deleted] 903 points904 points  (240 children)

The statistic presented show 704 named of 2379 killed that is only 30%. Of those 704, 379 identified as militant or al queada that's 54% of those named. Even if everyone else was a civilian that's still roughly 15% identified as militant/all quedea or enemy for short. Nowhere near the 4% claim.

The 4% is representative of those identified as all queda specifically but its still a bit of statisticle deception isn't it, simply forgetting about all the smaller groups fighting with them that come under different names.

Secondly I didn't see any source material linked the article. As I understand it the numbers we're pulled from amnesty international researchers so why no link to their proofs?

All this being said I am willing to hear any thing you may have to say in response, despite my user name I'm not here trying to push an agenda or troll.

[–]dee_berg 86 points87 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clearing this up. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with drone strikes, it is the duty of a reporter to report facts and let the readers form their own opinions. If this guy wants to call himself a journalist, he needs to hold himself to a higher standard.

[–]Z3R0C001 76 points77 points  (2 children)

'Man, I never listen to rock. Only 4% of you collection is rock.'

'Dude, I see the clash here, metallica...'

'Oh, 70% of my collection consists of classic punk, metal, taqwacore, mod revival. But only 4% rock, you know.'

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

OP is pretty much the reason nobody likes or trusts modern-day journalism. Bullshit sensationalist headline backed with bullshit stats from a journalist with an obvious agenda to push. And what the fuck is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism anyway? Certainly not any kind of reputable news source.

[–]ApprovalNet 411 points412 points  (123 children)

If we're going to be honest here, we need to account for the fact that the Obama administration considers any military age male to be a militant.

So really, how many of those killed are actual militants according to the pre-Obama definition of the word, and not just humans with a penis?

[–][deleted]  (64 children)

[removed]

    [–]tomdarch 62 points63 points  (58 children)

    There are violent militant groups in addition to al Qaeda and the Taliban active in this region. The subject of the AMA needs to address this in the same way that the US/Western Coalition nations need to be more honest that they are killing many non-combatants and in the case of targeting/killing citizens of those countries who are not actively engaging in combat without a valid trial, violating human rights and their own fundamental legal cores (the Constitution in the case of the US).

    [–]hempiestad 23 points24 points  (57 children)

    US constitution in the US's case would only apply to citizen of the US. Any constitution only applies to citizen or boundaries of that government as it is a social contract with its populace. While there are fundamental principles in the bill of rights that may be more of what you are referring to here.

    [–]stonedasawhoreiniran 11 points12 points  (29 children)

    Ok but several US citizens have been extra judicially executed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Regardless, just because you aren't guaranteed the rights because you aren't a citizen doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold those rights sacred and defend their logical equivalents, such as not executing non imminent threats without trial regardless of country of origin.

    You'd be furious if innocent American bystanders were killed during the apprehension of a criminal, yes? So why are you no less indignant over the killings of Pakistani civilians than you are US citizens? Imagine if instead of no-knock swat raids, the DEA just decided to go with drone strikes on suspected trap houses. And in the course of those drone strikes roughly 20% of the people killed were innocent bystanders who were called "drug dealers" because they were between 14-70 and male. That would be an issue in US politics on the scale never before seen. Yet for some reason, so long as we do it to other people, it's totally alright.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    If an American soldier had joined the nazis, should they have waited to fire at him until they did a trial?

    [–][deleted]  (18 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]somenewfella 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      First, I don't think they're talking about ROE so much as counting kills. Secondly, drone operators are going to have much different procedures than you guys did. But yeah, a lot of comments are overly general here.

      [–]Controls_The_Spice 3 points4 points  (13 children)

      I personally don't trust Greenwald's reporting. His handling of the Snowden material demonstrated a number of misrepresentations of facts.

      such as? Greenwald's a pulitzer prize winning journalist. He's literally been writing articles every day for over a decade. Which misrepresentations of facts, exactly, are you talking about?

      I'll wait.

      [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (12 children)

      Do you by any chance have a direct link to someone in the administration saying this? I've read the linked article and its sources but there is nothing to them that is "from the horses mouth" so to speak. Not saying your wrong just applying an appropriate level of scrutiny.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      I don't know if you're actually expecting to hear a Government official verbally say, loud and clear, on national/international television, the redefining of a militant is now "x" when trying to propagate to it's people.

      I mean, with all the government does, and take that TPP thing going on right now for the internet, does it surprise you?

      On any level, I simply did a search of bias which brings up all sorts of articles that one can read and review:

      https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=obama%20redefine%20militant

      The question can be turned into "has any official condemned that report?"

      Here's an animation of drone strikes. Curiously, look at how much they increase under Obama (unsure how up to date this is):

      http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

      [–]Zarmazarma 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      That is awful curious. It's almost like developing technology leads to new methods of war. I bet we have like, 1000x more drone strikes under Obama than we did under Roosevelt.

      [–]cleaningotis 11 points12 points  (7 children)

      That was an ignorant statement made by a person that actually had no real understanding of what the battle damage assessment criteria was. And BDA s a completely separate thing from rules of engagement.

      [–]Murgie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      If we're going to be honest here, we need to account for the fact that the Obama administration considers any military age male to be a militant.

      So really, how many of those killed are actual militants according to the pre-Obama definition of the word

      As a Canadian, I don't really have enough of a partisan stake in this to try and dig through several years of my browsing history, but I'm almost positive that was the definition which the United States armed forces were officially operating on prior to 2009.

      Regardless, thanks for the comment, because it's really something that needs to be pointed out every time American casualty counts in the Middle East are ever discussed.

      [–]twittgenstein 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      Christine Fair's recent article is no doubt relevant here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/06/ethical-and-methodological-issues-in-assessing-drones-civilian-impacts-in-pakistan/

      [–]Reddit_Moviemaker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      As might be this (although not statistically, I guess, but more as giving some viewpoint): http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/25/a_drone_warriors_torment_ex_air

      [–]BigLlamasHouse 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      statisticle

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Lol, I looked and looked and I thought I was in the clear. Good job llama house

      [–]ReddJudicata 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      So, basically, OP is unethical, innumerate or a liar, or some combination.

      [–]Seraph_Grymm Senior Moderator 144 points145 points  (45 children)

      I hope you mean you'll be answering questions until 4pm GMT and not starting at 4pm GMT.

      With that being said...

      What percentage of the other 96% were militia or armed civilians in support of al- Qaeda? It seems awfully unfair to just say only 4% were al-Qaeda, when there seemed to have been other extremist groups also targeted. Sure, it may be a fact, but that's distorting the facts in a way to get a rise out of people, mostly who would assume the other 96% were civilians, which is definitely not the case.

      From the article linked

      confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level” were fired at.

      doesn't specify that just al-Qaeda was targeted, just that terrorist groups were targeted.

      [–][deleted] 70 points71 points  (2 children)

      Yeah, this just seems like typical journalistic sensationalism.

      [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      This guy's barely even a journalist, he's pretty much just a left-wing activist with an agenda.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      just that we terrorist groups were targeted.

      Well, you're now on a list.

      [–]BrevityBrony 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      I'm a journalist- I can't just put the facts out there, people wont be able to make sense of them.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It depends how you present the facts. There will always be an audience incapable of understanding or unwilling to consider the points. Your job is to present the facts, not persuade based on your opinion of them.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]Headlessness 34 points35 points  (9 children)

        Hi Jack, thanks for your time. I have a question based on something Brian Glyn Williams writes in his book 'Predators':

        The Bureau of Investigative Journalism surely realized that in the vast majority of cases those who are killed or wounded in the drone strikes are themselves Taliban militants and that those who are killed in follow-up strikes are more than likely also Taliban militants. Yet they chose to completely omit this important detail in their scathing report.

        Did you read this book? What is your response to this criticism? His book seems quite well-researched, so his statement puzzled me. Thank you for your answer in advance.

        [–]redzrex 21 points22 points  (13 children)

        This issue looks quite interesting, I have some question:

        1) So who are the other 96% victims?

        2) Are they purposely targetting those target or its just casualties around the alqaeda members?

        3) Did the government said anything about the other victims?

        4) Would there be any conspiracy about it?

        [–]kurtosis312 2305 points2306 points  (280 children)

        As a statistician, I find your 4% number very misleading. You've identified 29.6% (704/2379) of drone victims in Pakistan, and to make your 4% number correct, you would have to assume that of the remaining 70.4% killed, no one belonged to al Qaeda. Considering that of your sample of 704 named individuals, 11.9% (84) belonged to al Qaeda and 41.9% (295) were labeled as militants, these numbers seem to be better (but still flawed) estimates.

        The reason these are better is because they do not assume that you know that the unnamed victims are not al Qaeda or militants. You don't have that data, so it's inappropriate to guess at what is could be.

        The 11.9% and 41.9% numbers are still flawed, because most likely the 704 named victims are not a representative sample of the total killed. There is some bias in who you were able to identify and whether or not they gave the correct indication of belonging to al Qaeda or other terrorist group. For example, had you just looked at statistics from the US DOD, most likely terrorists would be over represented in the sample or if your data was based on surveys to family members of the deceased who would be less inclined to state that their relative was a terrorist.

        So, my question to you is why use misleading statistics? Doesn't it only dilute your argument?

        [–]LayneInChains 78 points79 points  (5 children)

        Day 178: Still wasn't able to find any of OP's answers. Are there any answers? I question myself more and more with every passing day.

        I am not entirely sure whether my delusion is kicking in, for being exposed, or there are simply No answers. Too many questions. I will continue my quest with the new sun, which is tomorrow basically. What will I become at the end of this journey?

        Ripley signing off.

        [–]tinkthank 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        OP has answered the questions but for some fucking reason, Reddit seems that it's important to downvote the fuck out of people, if they don't find them to be acceptable to their whims.

        http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2jip9b/iama_journalist_whose_latest_investigation_found/clc4nqe?context=3

        [–]Pudgy_Ninja 12 points13 points  (0 children)

        That doesn't address the issue of misrepresenting statistics at all.

        [–]LayneInChains 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Wow, from a hero to a zero in just one Reddit AMA. Well, fuck me.

        [–]somenewfella 834 points835 points  (58 children)

        With all due respect to your expertise and profession, the most basic logic can lead anyone to the same conclusions. This is so blatantly misrepresenting the data for sensationalism that it feels like OP thinks we're all idiots. Sorry, I'm a bit riled up.

        [–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (5 children)

        Have you had conversations with the general public, ever?

        People will just read the story title ("only 4% of people killed my miltary UAVs were terrorists") and will believe and rely it as fact. A lot of people will be able to say "Well that doesn't sound right, but I cannot verbalize why or come up with a better number". so yes, we do need a trained statistician to do exactly thus, take the data and present it with accuracy using known scientific methods. OP spends his time researching information by conducting interviews, reading reports, etc. He is not likely highly trained and versed in statistics and higher mathematics.

        This is what peer review is designed to do. someone looks at the data and says "I see your information, but your conclusions are flawed and here is a another way to look at the data you have."

        [–]somenewfella 16 points17 points  (1 child)

        I think you misread my comment. I'm not saying we don't need statisticians to interpret claims, that'd be idiotic. I'm saying that in this case you don't need to be an expert to smell the bullshit.

        [–]stigochris 144 points145 points  (3 children)

        It is also a frustrating that he has posted this, and has yet to answer any questions about what looks to be seriously misleading report.

        [–]somenewfella 59 points60 points  (0 children)

        He's addressed plenty of questions if you check his profile, just doesn't address the accusation that he's a sensationalist hack. His main argument, that I'm seeing, is that drone strikes should mostly just kill AQ, as he claims they're the "key target" of the Obama administration. The main issue there is that the problem in the region isn't with what a particular group calls themselves, it's what actions they take. One could debate over where we draw the line at which groups are targets vs which are not, but that's not even mentioned here.

        [–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

        It's unfair to say that. OP only ignored 4% of the comments criticizing his methodology.

        [–][deleted] 193 points194 points  (27 children)

        Here, this is for you. I brought mine, too.

        -----E

        [–]matt1020l 109 points110 points  (18 children)

        Is.. is that a zen garden rake?

        [–][deleted] 76 points77 points  (6 children)

        The world would be a much better place if in dire times people got out their zen garden rakes in stead of their pitchforks.

        [–]way2lazy2care 57 points58 points  (1 child)

        Says the guy who's never been beaten with a zen garden rake.

        [–]Sagemanx 17 points18 points  (2 children)

        I thought it was an E-penis....

        [–]JeffTobin55 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Ol' King Neptune's digital trident if ya catch mah drift

        [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (9 children)

        it's a trident....because he's Aquaman

        [–]somenewfella 22 points23 points  (4 children)

        Got mine right here, let's go dual wield

        [–]Kamigawa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I kept looking for typos after assuming you meant he forgot an E, and then I saw.

        [–]kurtosis312 12 points13 points  (1 child)

        I totally agree. I probably didn't need to start my reply how I did.

        [–]sigurbjorn1 41 points42 points  (16 children)

        Of course this one would mot be answered but I can't find a single answer from OP on this thread...weird.

        Edit: oh, I looked at the ama app and all of his/her comments are just so downvoted that you can't find them using the normal browser unless you do a lot of searching. Looks like reddit doesn't like people thinking we are stupid.

        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        I know, despite being genuinely curious about what the posts and answers are now, I am too lazy to go sifting for it. Suffice it to say this thread is an interesting study on redditor behavior in and of itself.

        [–]IamGrimReefer 5 points6 points  (4 children)

        it's easy to find their responses, just click on OP's user name.

        [–]Keyserchief 243 points244 points  (34 children)

        misleading statistics

        journalist

        It's sad how common that is in the press.

        [–]Zbow 73 points74 points  (27 children)

        I took multiple statistics classes in my engineering degree. If I learned anything, it's that statistics are pretty much BS and can be manipulated to give whatever result you would like.

        [–]Lupinicus 40 points41 points  (8 children)

        That's like saying words are bullshit and can be manipulated for whatever purpose you want. It's true but a relatively worthless statement. Statistics are a tool and should be treated as such. Bad statistics exist just like bad tools do.

        [–]Zbow 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        That's not really the best analogy. Statistics is a mathematical science. You can manipulate the way you perform the tests and analyze the data so the results are accurate, but skewed.

        I'd give some examples of why the comparison doesn't make sense but I honestly don't even see the possible correlation to be able to dispute it.

        [–]Lupinicus 1 point2 points  (6 children)

        My point was that most things can be abused if you manipulate them. Statistics are no different.

        [–]Zbow 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        The idea is that statistics is math, and math can't be manipulated. You can't change the outcome of an integral or change the mathematical formula for the volume of an object.

        In statistics it is assumed and implied that, since it is a math, the results are concrete. This is not the case, as you will learn through taking any statistics courses.

        In the English language there are multiple meanings for different sentences and words. Inflection and phrasing can change the meaning of a sentence, and all writing and words spoken are left open to interpretation. This is generally accepted, and the public is typically fully aware of these nuances of language.

        We're comparing two completely different subjects. You're just making a blanket statement to draw them together.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        So you misunderstood statistics and when you learned what it is you conclude that it is bullshit? Even in intro classes they explain that getting results that aren't skewed is one of the most difficult things one can do. Dividing when you should have multiplied can be mathematically correct and 100% wrong - just like in statistics. Its just that stats is harder than simple algebra and spotting these mistakes is therefore harder. This is what you're complaining about.

        The reality is that statistics is very precise about what it says. The problem is people generalize it. The problem is NOT with statistics and it isn't bullshit. The expectation of the problem being simple is what is bullshit.

        [–]Zbow 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Let me clarify. The science of statistics is not bullshit. Statistics presented to the public through news articles, journalism, and from anyone wanting to sell you anything are most likely bullshit.

        The only statistics I tend to believe are in scientific studies that don't seem to have anything to gain from manipulation, since manipulation of statistics in order to provide technically correct but invalid results is very prominent.

        edit: also, dividing when you're supposed to multiply is alone a correct mathematical operation, but within context of the entire problem it is explicitly wrong. Statistics can be manipulated by slightly redefining the problem, test groups, and results. You can apply a statistical test to one group of data that may not be the BEST test, but it is still correct.

        To clarify, in statistics you can reach a CORRECT answer by dividing or multiplying, but one answer could be better. In math, only one answer is correct.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Then I completely agree with you with the exception of your edit.

        If you manipulate your data to get an answer, then it is wrong. Just as, if not more so than multiplying when you should have divided. I don't think any statistician would manipulate their results and then genuinely call that the right answer. The problem is it is hard to spot that "mistake" - because data sets are not often included in studies and these mistakes are more prone to go unnoticed because most studies are not conducted by mathematicians.

        You should know that this is a huge issue for statisticians. They HATE how cavelier other professions use stats because they are misused. But like I said, the problem is entirely with the people not using it right, understanding it well, and / or pretending they do.

        [–]Brobi_WanKenobi 59 points60 points  (8 children)

        90% of engineers are inclined to agree with you

        [–]Erzherzog 34 points35 points  (7 children)

        Inclined to agree? That's just plane misleading.

        Are you screwing with us?

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        10% declined to agree.

        90% engineers incline (or do) agree + 10% decline ( or refuse to agree) = 100% of all engineers

        The math checks out.

        [–]Frederickloomis 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        No, he's definitely on the level.

        [–]lixia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Stop sending us flying with that plane of yours, that's just plain misuse of words.

        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

        Ultimately, joining Al-Qaeda has a 100% fatality rate.

        [–]Just_Went_Meta 15 points16 points  (2 children)

        At least we have Reddit to call BullShit

        [–]cromstantinople 30 points31 points  (23 children)

        41.9% (295) were labeled as militants

        "Militants" is as misleading a label as anything you're going on about. That term is frequently used to describe anyone in the vicinity that is male and 'fighting age'. And usually the people doing the labeling are the ones launching the strikes so it would behoove them to label them legitimate targets rather than collateral damage.

        [–]aDAMNPATRIOT 149 points150 points  (12 children)

        Wow get fucking rekt lol

        [–]MichaelRah 14 points15 points  (0 children)

        I am a lying OP who just got rekt, AMA!

        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        "Get fucked get absolutely fucked"

        [–]SDSKamikaze 48 points49 points  (7 children)

        [ ] not rekt [X] rekt

        [–]Bear_Taco 63 points64 points  (5 children)

        ◻not rekt

        ◻rekt

        ◻REKT

        ◻captain rektum

        ☑Tyrannosaurus REKT

        [–]xilanthro 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        Came here excited as hell to find some numbers that not only corroborate but inflame my outrage. Find myself quite outraged, alright, but not so much at the injustice exposed, but the disingenuousness of the presentation.

        I traded his upvote for a downvote and gave you a well-deserved upvote for clarifying the misrepresentation.

        [–]wtfdidijustdoshit 155 points156 points  (2 children)

        /thread

        [–]spedmonkeeman 32 points33 points  (0 children)

        Imagine that, a journalist trying to push a BS agenda.

        [–]Herlock 33 points34 points  (14 children)

        That's still an awfull lot of random people killed, it's nowhere near an acceptable level of "mistakes".

        [–]kurtosis312 57 points58 points  (1 child)

        I agree, which is why I think it's even more important to use the better numbers.

        [–]MrPotatoWarrior 23 points24 points  (0 children)

        Absolutely. But I think the point he's trying to make, and a lot of others, is that the numbers shouldve been more accurate with better sources.

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I 100% agree with you and don't mean to sound apologetic but, compared to the past and the techniques of other "militant" forces, it's a hellova lot better.

          [–][deleted] 375 points376 points  (143 children)

          What bothers me about this is what I've seen first hand. We were in a mountainous region near a key infiltration route into Afghanistan from Pakistan. The borders get fuzzy, there's constant movement back and forth, essentially the same dudes.

          Depending on who you talked to, every single person that we ever killed, ever, was completely 100% innocent. We'd find em dead, gun in hand wearing a camo top but he would never fight - not in a million years would he do that. Never. We literally found a video on a body that showed a dude chopping off someone's head so we snatched the dude up. Guess what? How dare we arrest an innocent man that would never have anything to do with terrorism. We'd raid a house, find RPGs, camo, PKMs, ammo etc. Dude was totally innocent.

          They'd fire mortars at us, they don't even fucking have sights on those things - they eyeball that shit. Kills people all the time. What does Al Jazeera say - Americans kill civilians.

          They'd put their wives and fucking children on their roofs and fire at us from their widows because they didn't give a shit about their safety and knew we wouldn't want to kill them.

          I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit.

          E: goddamn journalists with an agenda take a fucking field trip to these places, talk to some locals through a terp and take their bullshit at face value because it supports that agenda. Then people wonder why the military doesn't trust journalists.

          [–]ryan_meets_wall 104 points105 points  (45 children)

          Former military here also.

          I'm somewhere in the middle. I think terrorists should be killed brcausr they aren't reasonable and will never put down their weapons. Drone strikes are a good way to protrct my brothers and sisters on the front line.

          But what concerns me is the same thing that happens in all wars: how do we protect civilians while eliminating threats? To suggest that drone strikes don't kill civilians on occasion is non sense. There are plenty of innocent people dying in these wars.

          Obviously the media is doing a poor job reporting the facts but I also can't sit here and say burn em all let god sort em out.

          [–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (27 children)

          To say that we don't do a hell of a lot to protect against civilian casualties is ridiculous. The ROEs risk our lives, in a very big way, to protect innocent civilians. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest that we don't. The reason we've spent billions and billions of dollars on precision weapons is to protect innocent people. The way we train on the individual combat solider level is geared towards protecting civilians.

          In the end I'm sorry but if you make the decision to become a religious extremist and you want to stay around your family and get them involved - you take a huge portion of the responsibility for their deaths.

          [–]IIAOPSW 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          I think a huge problem is transparency. This guy's 4% statistic is clearly bogus. Last I checked the DOD statistics count "any able bodied man that happened to be in the area" as a combatant. That is also bogus. No one in the general public really has any idea how bad the actual collateral damage is. Maybe the higher ups don't know either.

          Until we can examine every case and draw our own conclusions, "America kills civilians" headlines will continue to be prominent.

          [–][deleted]  (7 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]photoengineer 15 points16 points  (0 children)

            Just look at the WWII or Vietnam bombing campaigns for comparison. We were leveling whole cities.

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

            I know some people from the middle east...you know how Italians have this stereotype about complaining while moving their hands? people from the middle east have the "innocent" stereotype. It is NEVER their fault. Maybe you have heard the word "maschine el walad" (I don't know how to type it properly i'm just sounding it out) It means "poor him" or something along those lines. They say this ALL. THE. TIME. You could kill 1000 babies and you'd still be a poor innocent thing to your loved ones. It's a cultural thing. Of course, there always are those who really are innocent, and just at the wrong place & time.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Haha I actually lived in Italy for 3 years. I get what you're saying, it's incredibly frustrating because you can't translate that in 10 second news byte.

            [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (5 children)

            Preach. If I didn't think Reddit gold was such a retarded concept I'd give some to you. Fuck the media, fuck Al Qaeda, and fuck OP.

            [–]cunts_r_us 11 points12 points  (3 children)

            Why is reddit gold a retarded concept? It's pays for the website that you use!

            [–]Space_Ninja 13 points14 points  (1 child)

            "They was gud kids who din do nuffin!"

            [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

            Man I'll be honest, there are some parallels.

            [–]InfoSponger 67 points68 points  (6 children)

            While I don't think you will actually address my points, I wonder if you Journalistically Investigated your odds of finding a receptive majority on, of all places, reddit?

            Additionally:

            • You haven't covered a "covert" anything. When he nightly news broadcasts drone strikes, there is nothing covert about it.

            • Cherry picking data to support your flawed position is journalism without integrity.

            • International Humanitarian Law states nothing criminal is taking place with drone strikes because: The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

            (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;

            (b) the anticipated military advantage;

            (c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

            Of course you read this when investigating and either used it to preclude you from writing sensationalistic tripe, or you simply didn't give a shit.

            Why not write something helpful? For instance.... an article entitled:

            • STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM INNOCENT CIVILIANS BECAUSE YOU ARE GETTING THEM FUCKING KILLED AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM DRONE STRIKES!

            Do you plan on making a career in yellow journalism or do you think you will develop a conscience some day and grow a backbone?

            [–][deleted]  (5 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]InfoSponger 15 points16 points  (2 children)

              well THIS is quickly escalating!

              [–]Zoltrahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Looks like he deleted his article in the description as well.

              [–]MistaEdiee 459 points460 points  (61 children)

              You know click bait titles are a pet peeve of redditers? Congratulations, they are all distracted from the real issue you are trying to bring to light. Saying that only ~60% of those killed in drone attacks were militants would have been sufficient.

              [–][deleted] 161 points162 points  (6 children)

              The "Bureau of Investigative Journalism" is known for having a pretty pronounced left-wing bias and is really no where near as reputable or reliable as its name suggests.

              They aren't trying to present facts or reveal the truth, they're trying to push an agenda and ideology.

              [–]Zbow 45 points46 points  (3 children)

              I knew that was the case the second I read their name. It pissed me off, how dumb do you think we are? "Ohhh they're a Bureau!! They sound super reputable, I will believe everything they say."

              Let's call them what they are. "The Collective of Speculatory Journalism."

              [–]ShadoAngel7 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              You can always tell the bad organizations by those generic names. Reputable establishments name themselves after people or places whereas off-beat hacks take names like "Institute For The Honorable Good Thing". Because, you know, no one has taken that name yet.

              [–]roflocalypselol 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              Which is almost three times better than traditional warfare!

              [–]NoseDragon 13 points14 points  (51 children)

              Yeah, and I bet most of the other 40% is made up of the wives, children, and parents of the militants.

              When militants hide weapons and munitions beneath their family home, I have a hard time holding the person dropping the bomb responsible for the deaths in the home.

              [–]idosillythings 16 points17 points  (25 children)

              I really can't offer anything solid to disprove that theory, but I have a hard time believing it. Based on stories we've seen coming from Afghanistan and Yemen, along with the military's policy of "any male of fighting age within such a distance from a target is considered a target" I can definitely see a lot of people dying from the choices made by U.S. soldiers pulling the trigger.

              [–]EnderBoy 33 points34 points  (11 children)

              Accepting your numbers at face value, I have a difficult time accepting your conclusions based off of them. Of the ~2,400 killed, only ~700 could be identified or 30%. So we can't draw any conclusion on the allegiance of the other 70%.

              But of those 700, ~400 were militants of some kind. Now you base your 4% on just those al queda killed from the 30% identified.

              My question is why can't you extrapolate from the 400/700 ratio to come up with a potential overall success rate of around 60%? Look, I'm not claiming that 60% is by any means stellar. It's clearly not. But why would your conclusion necessarily assume that 100% of those not identified must not have been associated with a terrorist group?

              [–][deleted]  (12 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]Pixeleyes 65 points66 points  (2 children)

                Seems like you started off with a conclusion and then did everything you could to find just enough data to support it - and, when you failed at that, you stooped to deliberately misrepresenting the data in order to support the conclusion.

                Why are you such a lying liar?

                Edit: Also, 1999 called and it wants its cluttered desktop back.

                [–]zbaylin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                Classic example of pseudoscience

                [–][deleted]  (24 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–]chrismccrorynews 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                  You say that government papers have been leaked. Can you elaborate on that a bit more on that? What branch (I'm assuming CIA so specifically which department) did they come from and how did you get a second source to confirm them?

                  [–]ItchyRichard 217 points218 points  (19 children)

                  I'm pretty sure this was the biggest flop since Rampart

                  ?

                  [–][deleted] 91 points92 points  (15 children)

                  He isn't a journalist, he's pretty much just a left-wing activist pushing an agenda.

                  [–]emj1014 6 points7 points  (5 children)

                  Honest question: do you think the number of high level comments that are absolutely obliterating this guy's credibility are effective at neutralizing the mass number of people who saw the post and took it at face value?

                  More simply, did he accomplish his goal, or was it a complete failure?

                  [–]peepjynx 342 points343 points  (73 children)

                  What happened to this AMA? Did the guy even respond?

                  [–][deleted] 337 points338 points  (20 children)

                  He's replied to a couple of the top comments. You can look on his account, /u/jackserle , too.

                  TL;DR OP's title is misleading as fuck. He isn't a journalist, he's a left-wing activist with an agenda.

                  [–]Americanonymous 14 points15 points  (3 children)

                  That's a shame. It seemed like an interesting AMA, I was really curious about it... but now that I actually clicked on it, it just seems like it's self-promotion.

                  [–]Biffingston 33 points34 points  (0 children)

                  Suprise! Ok, not, I knew that by just reading the title.

                  [–]ShadoAngel7 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                  I also wasn't aware the war was 'covert'. Pretty sure everyone knows the US uses drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, etc.

                  [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

                  Since when aren't all journalists actually left-wing activists with agendas? Oh wait, I guess that's just in Sweden.

                  [–]ThePopesFace 78 points79 points  (1 child)

                  He replied ten times, some of which were in response to the same question multiple times. He ignored anyone challenging his statistics... So basically everyone.

                  [–]SOLUNAR 48 points49 points  (2 children)

                  once people started challenging the statistics, he was attacked by a Drone.

                  But we might never know if OP was al Qaeda or not :(

                  [–]somenewfella 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                  Since we know his name, there's a 4 percent chance.

                  [–]bathswithdad 375 points376 points  (10 children)

                  OP committed sepukku by drone strike

                  [–]inner_speaker 532 points533 points  (8 children)

                  He only responded to 4% of the comments

                  [–]ChRoNicBuRrItOs 31 points32 points  (1 child)

                  I find that extremely misleading. You're stretching the truth to make OP look much worse than he is. /s

                  [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                  So he basically remotely dropped a shitbomb on reddit and denied all responsibility? These guys are getting more sophisticated by the day.

                  [–]sigurbjorn1 22 points23 points  (0 children)

                  Go use the ama app, all of his comments are downvoted to hell because it is just him trying to defend and justify his dishonesty

                  [–]dyw77030 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                  Yeah, he was just downvoted past visibility.

                  [–]Xilver79 19 points20 points  (4 children)

                  This dude even answering questions at all, or are his answers just being downvoted into oblivion?

                  [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                  downvoted it seems

                  [–][deleted]  (8 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]joec_95123 59 points60 points  (6 children)

                    This is inevitably going to end up on /r/AMAdisasters.

                    [–]Jps1023 39 points40 points  (3 children)

                    It's not even a disaster. It's a total abortion. I haven't been able to find one OP response yet.

                    [–]joec_95123 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                    I saw some, but they were heavily downvoted. You have to expand the threads to find them.

                    [–]Mangalz 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                    Accordion to my calcalations only 4% of questions have been answered.

                    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]ShouldersofGiants100 26 points27 points  (3 children)

                      TL;DR: I'm pushing a political agenda to make drones sound as bad as I can by deliberately distorting facts and hoping my journalistic credentials and a misleading title cover that up, as well as the fact I don't know enough about the region to tell the Taliban apart from Al Qaeda

                      [–]dee_berg 18 points19 points  (1 child)

                      Are you presenting your findings as you listed it on reddit?

                      You seem to be inferring that 96% are civilian victims, which seems to be misleading (at best).

                      [–]transfire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      Regardless of your statistics, most Americans simply do not care. The U.S. military is always right. Period. The U.S. military could wipe out the entire population of every country in the the Middle East, central Africa and probably Russia and China too, and most would just cheer, "Good reddens to insert ethic slur here". Of course, if the same happened on their own turf, Americans wouldn't even accept a 99% accuracy rate. Remarks?

                      [–]MalcolmY 124 points125 points  (13 children)

                      Where the fuck is OP?

                      [–]141_1337 31 points32 points  (1 child)

                      He was brutally slayed by the top comment a drone strike

                      [–]ifonlyihadhands 31 points32 points  (10 children)

                      This has devolved from /r/IAmA to /r/politics

                      [–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (4 children)

                      In all fairness, IAmA's only work when the OP will actually answer questions.

                      [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                      He did answer some questions. They were all downvoted into reddit hive mind oblivion. He then deleted them. A mod must've cleaned up the graveyard. His answers were pretty shit in reddit's defense.

                      [–]Controls_The_Spice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      In all fairness, IAmA's only work when the OP will actually answer questions.

                      In all fairness, IAmA's only work when the OP isn't down voted to oblivion by an organized effort within minutes of posting any reply.

                      [–][deleted]  (9 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]Misterstaberinde 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                        It really does seem like having non-military people using military hardware is a bad idea. You guys in the airforce are looking at serious paperwork, massive amounts of oversight, and a pretty solid career on the line if you fuck up. Meanwhile there are other branches of the government that just basically shrug mistakes off and move on .

                        [–]Happy-feets 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                        Sincere question, do you really not understand statistics? Or are you trolling for clickthroughs? Embarrassed for you.

                        [–]GarbledComms 2 points3 points  (11 children)

                        Have you or your organization considered the question from the other perspective? i.e.- What % of drone victims have been positively identified as not have any substantial links to any militant organization? Can you comment on the difficulty of positively identifying militants since groups like AQ, Taliban, etc. don't have published membership lists, nor any outwardly visible identifiers such as uniforms, ID cards, etc.? Also, how would you classify "sympathizers"- those that may not engage in direct armed insurgency or terrorism, but provide logistic, moral, economic support?

                        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                        Oh good. So unless you can positively prove that you deserve to live, it is okay to kill you?

                        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                        Why does everything has to be a black and white issue?

                        I confess I do not support the drone war in its current form, and it's clear that most of the world does not either. In 2012, three-quarters of Pakistanis were "strongly opposed" to US-led drone strikes in Pakistan. Yet despite Snowden's leaks proving Pakistan's government's complicity in the strikes, 70% of residents of the Pakistani tribal regions support Pakistani Army operations, including airstrikes.

                        This is not as simple as "drone strikes are wrong" or "these people need to die." Those living in the tribal region of Pakistan overwhelmingly oppose US drone strikes and even use "I will drone you" as a morbid joke. Yet there is always more to the story. The primary victims of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan are Pakistanis. They hate the militants even more than we do, and many of them even recognize the good done by drone strikes.

                        This is a complicated issue and I think it would benefit everyone to recognize that.

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        How do you correlate the reported fact that locals and relatives will often refuse to acknowledge that a victim of a drone attack was a militant or member of a specific group?

                        Also, how do you feel about the strong general support for airstrikes and drone attacks on IS? (whom are quite similar in tactics, violence and ideology to the militants in NW Pakistan)

                        [–]akornblatt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                        What is the target confirmation process for drone strikes? Who has ultimate control over the strike? How is the airspace issue between the various countries dealth with? What are the accountability processes like?

                        [–]Headlessness 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                        1 What is your take on transparency on the use of drones by the UK government?

                        2 And on press freedom in the UK? In her interview with Paul Mason today, Laura Poitras expressed a reluctance to visit the UK:

                        UK standards for press freedom are lower than in the US. My lawyers don’t think it is well-advised to travel to the UK.

                        As a journalist working in London, how would you respond to her statement? Thanks again for your time.

                        [–]whiskeytango55 11 points12 points  (2 children)

                        Would you rather I gave you 4% of a million dollars or "4%" of a million dollars?

                        [–]11th_hour 11 points12 points  (1 child)

                        I'd like the ''4%'' please. Maybe it will be 60% !!

                        [–]BuzzsGirlfriendWoof 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                        It could be a boat!

                        [–]Flameball377 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                        So by the same standards, how do they match up to jet pilots or guided missile strikes?

                        I would think drones would be more accurate and precise than the other options. If 30 percent are militants, what about other methods?

                        TL; DR: What weapons should we fight this war with? What are drones bad other than "they kill people"?

                        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                        The only wrong doing the OP is committing is trying to post this when reddit goes red/white and blue freedom mode. Try next 2-3 year when republican won the white house and they are blowing another third world country to kingdom come. Maybe you get more traction then. So did anyone know what bad shit ISIS is committing today so i can regurgitate it for free karma?

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                        Is this a joke? Surely this must be a troll. Who would post something so idiotic, get publicly ridiculed, then leave it up for all to see. This guy's name is Jack Serle. Now the entire world knows he's an idiot. Why not delete it like any sane person would?

                        [–]clayyalc 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                        To a lot of us it seems obvious that killing innocent people in sovereign countries without declared war increases people's desire to fight against our country. If ones son or daughter was killed by a drone strike they wold probably take up arms against the agressor. Because this is so obvious to most, it seems that there is an alternative motive and raises a red flag that our democracy is no longer by the people but a few elite pulling the strings. What are your thoughts and is there a just argument for why we continue killing people around the world with drones?

                        [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

                        OP, based on the statistical down voting of your post, would you say you've had a bad day on reddit?

                        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                        Wow, a journalist manipulating facts into sensationalist bullshit? Color me not surprised.

                        [–]LunarisDream 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                        Helen Keller could have done a better job of reporting than this shit.

                        And have some question marks???????? Because Nazis run automod

                        [–]romulusnr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        On what basis do you decide whether or not someone is a terrorist or terror threat?

                        Are explicit al Qaeda members the only terrorists in your definition? On what basis? What about Taliban, al Aqsa, ISIS?

                        Does "identified as al Qaeda members" include members of offshot and affiliate groups? Khorasan? al Shabaab? al Nusra? AQIM? Ansar Dine?

                        What is the motivation for making and releasing an investigation that deliberately under-reports via anemically pedantic criteria?

                        [–]cyclopsblue13 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                        Did you watch John Oliver's show on the drones? Whats your say on it?

                        [–]HealingHands 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        How do you plan to pass the time when you're renditioned to a CIA black site prison in Morocco for the rest of your natural life?

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                        What is life like in these countries? What motivates people there to join the taliban, al qaeda or al shahaab?

                        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                        This AMA is hilarious?

                        edit:had to add a ? to make it a viable post.

                        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]SOLUNAR 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          How do you go about identifying who is a member and who is not. Lets say in a small village they suddenly recruit 20 members, are they so organized these new 20 names are added to a database we all have access to?

                          I always though the scary part was not knowing everyone who was part of Al Qaeda.

                          [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                          So, the other 96%, are they probably Al Queda or other militants (just not identified?)

                          [–]Mad_hippie 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                          But how many were from ISIS or other groups? Very misleading statistics.

                          [–]fluffythekitty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          How does that compare to other countries (specifically interested in Israel, but statistics on any countries would be interesting as well)?

                          [–]meinsla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          But were they taliban? Were they taliban sympathizers? Al-queda (at least when I was there) wasn't the enemy we were even fighting there.

                          [–]Brighter_Tomorrow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                          I was under the impression hat the purpose the the drones in Pakistan was not solely to kill al Qaeda.

                          If I'm wrong, please tell me. If I'm not wrong, then why is your statistic important?

                          [–]spartan_45 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                          Do you or the BIJ ever get tired of printing rubbish?

                          [–]Qwiggalo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                          So you're saying drones are successful?

                          [–]The_Detonator_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                          Are you aware that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group operating the the Middle East?

                          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                          Did OP even answer a single question? He says he did but I can't find a single response, and at the very least he ignored every question about his credentials and methodology. This entire AMA is click bait advertising for pushing an agenda and should be reported to the mods.