- 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?
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.
One is casualties and the other is deaths. “Casualties” includes wounded.
Note that:
You are adding wounded to Obama but not Bush Sr to make Obama look worse. That’s exactly the problem I described at the start.
Including wounded Obama is still less than the 100,000-200,000 killed by Bush Sr.
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.
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.