- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
[a green flag with a leaf stands above an utopian green city with vegetation and clean energy]
Greenists believe that the world should be a better place for green people, and everyone else too
[an orange fascist-looking star in a gear logo stands above a bleak concrete city]
Orangites believe that the world should only have orange people, and that all greens should be hung
[an orange character speaks smugly, in a bedroom that contains an orangite logo and a greenist/orangite flag]
Me?
I’m a greenist-orangite,
why do you ask?
That’s because you aren’t an extremist.
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. In 3 years it will be “Mamdani the citizen murderer” while ignoring that ( I expect ) he’ll have less deaths than any modern mayor.
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.
Iraq was effectively over when Obama started and Afghanistan slowed too by the end of Obamas second term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan
Bush Sr: 100-200k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
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 graphs show that Afghanistan casualties were flat
https://www.statista.com/chart/20932/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-in-last-decade/?srsltid=AfmBOorw0E6-ZCL-OnLzljFLq8mSXw1D0XIQXn7QXZNhCI0sDTcuXFhm
It’s of particular interest that there is no data until 2009. Bush had made everything about the war secret and didn’t collect or release numbers. Do you really think the initial invasion which included all of NATO had less casualties?
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.
No.
The chart has total in red and yearly in orange.
Yes, and the total shows 80k in 2016.
I don’t know why it doesn’t add up.
Doing the math year by year from UN data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001-2021)
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) recorded 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths in the American-led war in 2009 The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) recorded 2,777 Afghan civilian deaths in the American-led war in 2010 For the whole year of 2011, the United Nations reported that the civilian death toll numbered 3,021, a record high. In addition, 4,507 Afghans were wounded A 2012 report by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan noted that the number of Afghan civilians killed or injured in 2012 decreased for the first time since the United Nations began keeping track of such figures.[64] 2,769 civilian deaths (2013) The UN recorded 2,969 civilian deaths 2014 Overall, according to the UN, 3,710 civilians were killed 2015 The UN estimates that 3,545 civilians were killed 2016 The UN estimates that in 2016 3,498 civilians were killed
2412+2777+3021+4507+2769+2969+3710+3545+3498 = 29208.
Bro it’s always a losing battle to talk with “leftists” who think they’re doing a good thing by not voting. They find the most specific and inconsequential shit in the grand scheme of things and just harp on it. Your original comment is gold.
“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.
I think you’re fighting against some super niche extremists then. And if they are so niche why are they living rent free in your head?
They aren’t a niche on Lemmy. They were everywhere before the election.
Then you are either conflating their numbers by the noise they make, or you’re not really interested in listening to peoples concerns and this is just team sports to you. Both make you a deeply unserious person not worth listening to. Peace dude!
You insult because you know you are wrong.