If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
I didn't add wounded as a rebuttal, you added wounded when you linked stats of total casualties, and I corrected your mistake. My only fault in that misunderstanding is that I didn't catch your mistake right away.
No matter how much data I show, you keep trying to make Obama worse than Bush.
I literally just corrected your mistake by pointing out that you were overestimating the number of confirmed civilian deaths under Obama by including all casualties, so no, I am not twisting numbers around to make him look bad, I'm just trying to make sure that we're comparing the same stats and interpreting them correctly. Where I come from, that's called "responsible fact checking."
No I’m not. https://www.forcesnews.com/news/remembering-gulf-war-key-facts-figures
Civilian deaths resulting from the conflict are estimated at between 100,000 and 200,000.
You're looking at confirmed cases in one case and estimated cases in the other. You can find a breakdown of that estimate on Wikipedia, where the vast majority of those numbers come from the uprisings and the aftereffects of things like destroying power plants.
Look, I don't care which figure you want to compare. Casualties, deaths, civilian deaths, confirmed civilian deaths, direct or indirect, but you have to use the same figure in both cases.
I swear, every time I demonstrate good faith, people accuse me of acting in bad faith. You provided casualty numbers and expressed confusion as to why they didn't line up with death numbers, I figured out and explained the confusion, even though it was favorable to your position, and now you say I'm trying to be deceptive. You provided those numbers, you interpreted them that way, tbh I also forgot that distinction until you pointed out the difference, don't come at me with "you're adding wounded to Obama's numbers to make him look worse" when you're the one who provided those numbers.
There's one other problem with the comparison you're making. You're looking at confirmed civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but total deaths in the Gulf War. Personally, I believe both wars were unjustified so total dead is the more relevant number, but we can also compare civilian casualties, just so long as we're looking at the same statistic in both cases.
One is casualties and the other is deaths. "Casualties" includes wounded.
Note that:
Most, if not all, of the sources state that their estimates are likely to be underestimates.
In UNAMA/AIHRC methodology, whenever it remains uncertain whether a victim is a civilian after they have assessed the facts available to them, UNAMA/AIHRC does not count that victim as a possible civilian casualty. The number of such victims is not provided.
Yes, and the total shows 80k in 2016.
"The most specific and inconsequential shit" here referring to the mass murder of Afghan civilians during a war of aggression and military occupation.
If that is inconsequential, I'd very much like to know what is consequential. Like, what ICE is doing right now is a toned down version of what Bush, Obama, and Trump did to the Afghans. And see, I operate on a worldview that says those people are human beings too whose lives should be considered with equal weight as anybody else's. I understand that you libs are incapable of viewing them as people, but you can at least try to pretend otherwise.
The data shows ~6k per year which is 48k over 8 years.
The chart clearly shows 80k in 2016?
Also worth noting that this only counts civilian casualties. Fun fact, under Obama, the US counted any "military-aged male" killed in a drone strike as an "enemy combatant" under the logic that if they were standing underneath a drone they must have been up to something. Looks like these numbers are from the UN so probably more reliable. But the numbers of 100-200k for Bush Sr. I believe were total causalities.
Do you really think the initial invasion which included all of NATO had less casualties?
No.
Neither of those sources break down casualties by term. The idea that Afghanistan "slowed" seems to be entirely vibes-based and detached from reality - he escalated in both drone strikes and deployments, with the "troop surge."
Yes, Bush Sr. killed 100-200k, which is still considerably less than the war in Afghanistan. If roughly half the deaths in Afghanistan were under Obama, then that would put him about on par with Bush Sr.
The extremists wouldn’t vote for Obama because he killed some people while ignoring that he killed less than any other President in the last 50 years.
Do you have an actual source for that? Considering the hundreds of thousands of people he had killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe his death toll was lower than Clinton's, or hell, even Bush Sr.
No, they appreciate yours.
Anyone who was so deeply involved in the wars in orchestrating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be tried as a war criminal. Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Trump, they were all responsible for mass murder and should each receive whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for hundreds of thousands of murder charges.
And he’s snuggling with pigs on pig farms. I think there are some people who would say that such actions are only possible on exploited pigs who are headed for the slaughterhouse, and therefore, because he has made himself part of the meat system, he wouldn’t be a vegan, either.
What on earth? That's like saying that activists who give water to pigs in slaughterhouse trucks aren't vegan because "they've made themselves part of the meat system."
You can snuggle pigs that aren't headed to the slaughterhouse, so in no way does such an action necessitate or expedite harm to animals.
Well, that would certainly be an interesting new direction to try after 250 years of the opposite.
Definitely don’t believe these people have done much to earn the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt, even remotely.
I would say it’s harder to believe a sex trafficking pedophile island run by a bunch of billionaires to serve the world’s elite, ever existed in the first place
I don't find that hard to believe at all, that seems very consistent with the sort of things billionaires do.
If a scientist famously attempted to do it, not sure why you would think these people wouldn’t?
This is what you're not getting. It's not a question of whether they would or wouldn't do it based on morals. Absolutely no question that they would. The thing is they could've literally just dumped bodies into mass graves, what, are cops going to be snooping around? Or thrown them into the sea, whatever they feel like. It's purely a question of practicality.
There's simpler and more mundane explanations anyway, like desalinization. Again it's not a question of "giving them the benefit of the doubt."
Sulphuric acid is not particularly good at dissolving bodies. It's hard to believe that a bunch of billionaires on a private island with bodies to dispose of would chose that as a method.
Agree that Epstein was clearly murdered.
There used to be two opposing superpowers. Then there was one superpower, with nobody else powerful enough to keep it in check. How on earth was it not more balanced? How could anything be less balanced than a world with one superpower?
It was more balanced than it is today. And especially more balanced than it was immediately after the the USSR collapsed.
My example of a world with a balance of power isn't any better than a world dominated by a single power?
Anyone who's in camp 2 will be labelled as a "tankie" regardless of anything they say or don't say.
Bro. I have looked at every single source you have provided. I wouldn't have been able to explain the discrepancy you were confused about if I hadn't.
No, you absolutely have not. Where did you cite, for instance, direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War? Objectively, you have not. You only say "by any metric" because you're playing fast and loose with the metrics, comparing stats of different things. I'm not asking for "by any metric," I'm asking for one metric. Whichever you choose! But it has to be the same for both.
You made the claim (the original claim was ("less than any president in 50 years," and we haven't even touched Clinton or any other presidents), so the burden of proof is on you. I'm not positively asserting that Obama caused more deaths than Bush Sr, I just found that claim questionable and was curious where you got it from.
If you leave it to me, I'll compare total deaths. Based on the sources you've provided, the total death toll of Afghanistan was probably about twice that of the Gulf War, and roughly half of Afghanistan happened under Obama. I don't have stats that break down the number of total deaths by president, so I don't know for sure, but it's close enough to be dubious.