CF
ClearFeed
Trust Analysis
50Trust
Partially True
๐Ÿ” 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
Accuracy
35
Framing
40
Context
25
Tone
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)
โ€œPeople 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.
โœ“ Verified
โ€œDropping 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.
๐Ÿ’ฌ Opinion
Was this analysis helpful?
Try ClearFeed free โ†’
clearfeed.app โ€” Trust scores for your social feed