Comment by andriy_koval
5 days ago
burden of proof is on one making statement, especially if he is passively-aggressively toxic.
Productive discussion would be if you go read that report before bringing it here, and tell what material evidence they have for that specific incident?
US picked some target through some classified protocol, what evidence states that there was some reckless in process?
We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure.
Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here):
- II (full section)
- IV.B.1 (full section)
- IV.B.2.88-89
- IV.B.2.95-96
- V.B (full section)
The report itself attributes its sources. If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding. Pre-strike imagery of the school is public.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
[flagged]
This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the raw text of the report that support the summary but you refuse to read it, asking me again for a summary which I already posted? I've provided everything you've asked for; do you actually have a point or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
6 replies →