50Trust
Partially True
๐ Web Verified
Madeleine MorrisonMastodon6h ago
RE: https://journa.host/@samlitzinger/116784883875340095
I'm so fucking tired of hearing these murderous bastards say that the people they killed 'were not targets', as if that is a coherent statement.
When you drop bombs, you've targeted. Period. You are responsible for what you destroy. Period.
Trust Metrics
69
35
40
25
Accuracy69%
Framing35%
Context40%
Tone25%
Analysis Summary
The author is responding to documented incidents where US officials have disputed responsibility for civilian deaths in bombing campaigns โ including the Iran school bombing (175+ confirmed dead), a Somalia drone strike killing children, and recent boat strikes. The claim that officials use 'not targets' language to evade accountability is well-supported by recent reporting. The argument that dropping bombs creates automatic responsibility is moral commentary, not factual assertion โ but it's grounded in real incidents where civilians were killed and official accountability was disputed or refused.
Claims Analysis (2)
โPeople killed in bombing strikes were labeled 'not targets' by those responsibleโ
Multiple recent US bombing incidents reported where officials disputed casualty responsibility. Iran school bombing (175+ dead), Somalia drone strike, boat bombings all documented with defensive official statements.
โDropping bombs makes you responsible for casualties regardless of intent claimsโ
This is a moral/legal argument about accountability, not a factual claim. It reflects a valid position in international humanitarian law debates but is presented as the author's philosophical stance.
Verify Yourself
Was this analysis helpful?
Try ClearFeed free โ