Killed walking home from school: why did Somali children become targets of US drone strikes?
1d 6h ago by lemmy.world/u/FlashMobOfOne in world from www.theguardian.com
The family were killed during a US airstrike in Somalia. According to a Guardian investigation, at least 12 civilians, including eight children, died during the attack.
It is the deadliest US operation for civilians in Somalia during either Trump administration. The US had not killed so many innocent people in a single incident in the east African country for 18 years. The previous highest confirmed toll was the bloody, botched US military operation in the capital, Mogadishu, that became known as the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.
Because USA is a terrorist country that doesn't give a shit about international law, or the rights of people in other countries.
70000 civilians were killed by illegal American drone attacks during the Obama administration, yet many people outside USA see Obama as a good president. Obviously the Republicans are worse, but even the ones that were considered good, generally weren't really. They were still American sensationalists, that believe USA can do anything disregarding international laws and human rights.
Obama dropped 20,000 tons of bombs on the world just in the last year of his presidency, and was simultaneously at war with seven countries at once. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.)
That motherfucker LOVED to bloody his hands.
And somehow he was awarded the Nobel peace price! Which only shows us the price is completely without moral basis.
They might as well have awarded it to Netanyahu.
The only real defense is that it was 2009 and he hadn't really had much of a chance to display what a motherfucker he is, but man, he sure did spend the seven years after that making sure everyone knew he was a piece of shit.
I can't get over that Canada spends like 30 billion a year on their military. Mexico spends 8 billion a year on theirs. And both provide an exponentially better standard of living for their people overall.
Here, we get bombs for our tax dollars and not much else.
Yes, he hadn't shown much, and there was no basis for awarding him the price.
100%
He gave good speeches. That was it. I wish people in this country cared more about a politician's actions and votes than what they say.
He gave good speeches.
Absolutely, I too fell for it for years. It was only a few years into his presidency it really became obvious to me, that he may be better then Republicans, but he still suffered from serious American delusions of might makes right, and disregard for the rights of everybody not American.
I wouldn't argue that he was better than Republicans, especially after he supported the crackdown on Occupy and bailed out the big banks while the rest of the US became permanently poorer.
He's like any Democrat, a Republican that's just packaged and presented differently.
Well I understand why many say that, but between 2 evils I still believe that Democrat is the lesser evil, after all they do have people like Bernie and AOC.
And I believe if Americans want to change politics in USA for the better, the best way is probably to engage with the Democrats, and help changing the party to something more progressive from within.
But I agree Democrats are disappointingly bad, and have been so especially in the face of Trump, where Democrats have done next to nothing, and is offering no strong alternative to the far extreme right that the Republicans are.
If they did, Kamala would have won by a landslide. She was closest to Sanders in voting record, and as VP pushed for the investigation that's required to bypass the law that says we have to supply Israel with weapons.
And both provide an exponentially better standard of living for their people overall.
You've clearly never been to Mexico if you believe that.
Well, in all fairness, Kissinger got one first, so by the time Obama got one it was already pretty obvious that the Nobel Peace Prize was no prize for Peace.
Kissinger. 🤮 😬 🤪
That's insane!
Would you have sources for this number? I checked quickly and the numbers were quite smaller.
The official number is 9000 to 17000
But the exact number is heavily debated. Suffice it to say that USA has not been entirely honest, and US propaganda can obviously manipulate open data sources such as Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_the_United_States_drone_strikes
Whether it makes much difference if Obama killed 9000 innocent people or 70000 is a weird argument IMO.
I don't trust USA for many reasons, among them the falsified intelligence that caused my country to got to war against Iraq together with USA.
Believe what you will, the fact remains indisputable that Obama allowed US military to illegally attack several countries with drones killing civilians.
Obama allowed US military to illegally attack several countries with drones killing civilians.
He also highly touted the euphemism 'military age male' so that he could cover up (sort of) for the number of people he killed.
It will not make a difference in how illegal and wrong it was, but having some verified numbers about the percentage of civilians casualties over combattants helps understand if it was mistakes/collateral damages of military targets, or something worse.
Adding up the high ends of a set of wide error bars doesn't give you a solid number, it gives you the worst of worst cases.
You are completely ignoring the root problem. Which is that USA is committing war crimes, and also did under Obama, and that doesn't change even if the number is as USA claims.
Kelly added: “Describing enforcing the law and bombing terrorists as ‘racist’ is the kind of moronic take one can only expect from the Guardian.”
This underlines your comment better than anything else.
I don't like his presidency and I am not American either. But damn he was so charismatic. I am a straight male but he could turn me gay.
This is reminiscent of Clinton's "peacekeeping operations" or Obama's "surgical strikes". They keep inventing these lukewarm-sounding euphemisms so they don't have to declare war and can just bomb people haphazardly without any accountability. That doesn't change the fact that these are fucking war crimes.
Also why I oppose any war that isn't purely defensive in nature.
I don't remember a single war of agression or american foreign interventions Hillary did not support. She is the ultimate war monger
She still is. I bet if given the chance she'd kill more than the others and spin it because that's what she's good at..
That's consistent with her admiration for Kissinger.
They remind me of kids killing ants with a magnifying glass.
because thw usa is a fashist country?
Jerk-off fodder for Hegseth?