Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
You would think someone who has done several tours would have known that.In case anyone actually cares about facts, the Mail article linked by the OP flagrantly misrepresents what is in the Stanford/NYU report.
98% "innocent civilians" is nowhere in this report. It cites numerous statistics from various investigations and media reports. One such report says that only 2% of those killed were militant leaders, while at least 20x more were foot soldiers. Most reports cited in this study show civilian casualty rates around 5-20%.
The report is highly critical of the drone strikes. However, the Mail has lied about its contents. It has to be a lie since the article is 5 days old and remains uncorrected.
Go back to your opinions by all means. This was just a brief reality check for those who do not like to check sources.