I like the fact that the site includes all killed people. With 20% civilian casualties rate, the recent announcement of 50000 killed people in Syria/Iraq means US may have directly killed 10000 civilians in just the last two years there. https://airwars.org/ reports a lower number though. But theirs is a very conservative estimate.
The "50,000 ISIS fighters killed" claim includes all reasons for their deaths, not just US drone/air/special forces. Given the civil war in Syria and the anti-ISIS offensive in Iraq it's likely that the majority of those deaths aren't directly caused by US actions.
What's your source for the 20% civilian casualties rate?
According to https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-fin... the numbers published by the Obama administration are "a fraction of even the most conservative estimates on drone-related killings catalogued by reporters and researchers over the same period."
With so many people around the world needing killing, we should be thankful that Obama was in office. If a Republican was in power, the casualties would have been much worse, probably over ten times!!
This comment is so incredibly misleading. Predator drones were new in 2001. The idea that it makes sense to directly compare drone use in the Bush administration to drone usage in the Obama administration is just wrong.
Furthermore, I never really understood why people focus on drones as particularly egregious. Drones are significantly more accurate than cruise missiles and airstrikes because they can get closer to targets.
If you want to question the whole "deliver ordinance to places in which intel suggests there may be 'enemy combatants'" then I'm with you. But that criticism is totally separate from how the ordinance is delivered.
I wonder when will this escalation stop.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-500...