报告称:美国发动的打击ISIS的战争造成的平民死亡是此前声称的31倍 [美国媒体]

Report: the US-led war against ISIS is killing 31 times more civilians than claimed

报告称:美国发动的打击ISIS的战争造成的平民死亡是此前声称的31倍


  
Mohammed Mahmoud, who received serious head injuries from shrapnel during an airstrike in Mosul, is comforted by his brother Amar Mahmoud while he lies in his bed on April 17, 2017, in Erbil Emergency Hospital in Erbil, Iraq.  

2017年4月17日，在摩苏尔的一次空袭中头部严重受伤的穆罕默德·马哈茂德躺在了伊拉克埃尔比勒医院急诊室的床上，他的兄弟阿马尔·马哈茂德在一旁安慰他。

The Pentagon claims that its air war against ISIS is one of the most accurate in history and that it is so careful in who it targets that the 14,000 US airstrikes in Iraq have killed just 89 civilians.

五角大楼声称它对ISIS展开的空袭是有史以来最精准的打击行动，而且它对打击目标非常谨慎，美国在伊拉克的1.4万次空袭中只杀死了89名平民。

It turns out that the military’s assertion is a stunning underestimation of the true human cost of Washington’s three-year-old war against ISIS. An 18-month-long investigation by the New York Times has found that the US-led military coalition is killing civilians in Iraq at a rate 31 times higher than it’s admitting.

事实证明，军方的声明令人震惊的低估了华盛顿在过去三年来打击ISIS的战争中所造成的真实人员伤亡。《纽约时报》在进行了长达18个月的调查后发现，以美国为首的军事联盟正在以比其承认的高出31倍的速度杀害伊拉克平民。

“It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history,” Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal report.

Azmat Khan和Anand Gopal 报道称：“这与官方的说法有很大差别，就平民死亡而言，这可能是美国近代历史上最不透明的一场战争。”

From April 2016 to June 2017, Khan and Gopal traveled to nearly 150 sites in three ISIS-controlled areas in Northern Iraq. These were sites where the coalition conducted airstrikes against targets ostensibly linked to the militant group. In the places they visited, they found that the coalition vastly underreported how many civilians had died in the bombing.

从2016年4月到2017年6月，Khan和Gopal拜访了伊拉克北部三个受isis控制区域的近150个地区。在这些地区，联军对那些表面上与激进组织有关联的目标进行了空袭。在他们所访问的地区，他们发现联军大大低估了在爆炸中丧生的平民的数量。

The US-led coalition claims that one civilian has been killed in every 157 airstrikes. But Khan and Gopal report that, actually, the rate is one civilian death for every five airstrikes — a rate 31 times as high as what the military claims.

以美国为首的联军声称平均每157次空袭中有1名平民丧生。但是，Khan和Gopal的报告指出：实际上每5次空袭就有一名平民丧生，这一数字比军方所宣称的高31倍。    

Gopal and Khan tell the story of 56-year-old Basim Razzo, an Iraqi man whose family was killed in an airstrike in September 2015. The coalition later put up a video of the airstrike on Razzo’s home on YouTube. The video claimed to be hitting a car bomb factory. Razzo’s family wasn’t counted among the civilian deaths until Khan and Gopal brought it up to coalition officials.

Gopal和Khan讲述了56岁的伊拉克人Basim Razzo的故事，他的家人在2015年9月的一次空袭中丧生。随后，联军在YouTube上发布了一段对Razzo家实施空袭的视频。在这段视频中，联军声称他们是在打击一个汽车炸弹工厂。Razzo的家人并没有被算入到平民死亡人数当中，直到Khan和Gopal向联军官员提到了这件事。

This raises many troubling issues about America’s air war against ISIS. First, a US-led military campaign is greatly underreporting the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. That also raises questions about how many civilians the US-led coalition might be killing in Syria, the neighboring country where the fight against ISIS is also taking place.

这引发了与美国打击ISIS的空袭有关的许多令人不安的问题。首先，由美国领导的军事行动大大低估了伊拉克平民的伤亡人数。这也引发了另一个问题:在伊拉克的邻国叙利亚——这里也正在展开打击ISIS的战斗——以美国为首的联盟在叙利亚杀死了多少平民。

And, worse, killing civilians in ISIS’s territory could be a boon for its own recruitment.

更糟糕的是，在ISIS的地盘上杀害平民可能会帮助该组织招募兵源。

The anti-ISIS war keeps killing civilians

这场打击ISIS的战争不断地导致了平民丧生

As Vox reported before, the US military has a civilian casualties problem.

正如Vox此前所报道的那样，美国军方在导致平民伤亡方面存在问题。    

For example, on May 26, Al Jazeera reported that more than 106 civilians, including 42 children, died during two days of bombing in Al-Mayadeen, Syria, by the coalition. The planes fired strikes at buildings that housed families of ISIS fighters.

比如在5月26日，半岛电视台报道称在叙利亚的迈亚丁市有超过106名平民——其中包括了42名儿童——在持续两天的轰炸中丧生。当时这些飞机向居住着ISIS武装人员家属的建筑物发动了空袭。

US officials routinely note all the steps they take to ensure civilians aren’t harmed in an attack, such as gathering detailed intelligence and attacking sites during times when few noncombatants are likely to be in the area. However, Khan and Gopal couldn’t find a noticeable ISIS target near half of the strikes they visited.

美国官员通常会注意他们所采取的步骤，以确保平民在袭击中不会受到伤害，比如在可能有少数非战斗人员存在的地区收集详细情报和发动攻击。然而，Khan和Gopal在他们拜访的近近一半的受袭地点附近都无法找到一个显着的ISIS目标。

Still, officials acknowledge, they take the necessary precautions to ensure civilians aren’t casualties of the war — even though they sometimes are.

不过，官员们承认他们采取了必要的预防措施，以确保平民不会在战争中伤亡——尽管有时他们的袭击会导致平民伤亡。

“We’re not happy with it, and we’re never going to be happy with it,” Col. John Thomas, a spokesperson for the military command that oversees the war, told Khan and Gopal. “But we’re pretty confident we do the best we can to try to limit these things.”

负责海外战争军队指挥问题的一名发言人约翰托马斯上校对Khan和Gopal说道：“我们对这一状况不满意，我们永远不会对它感到满意，但是我们非常确信我们正在尽最大的努力来限制这些事情的发生。”

Despite the advanced military techniques the coalition uses, however, it still cannot stop killing noncombatants because the US and its allies choose to fight ISIS primarily from the skies. It was inevitable that civilians would become collateral damage.

尽管联军使用了先进的军事技术，但它仍然无法做到不伤害非战斗人员，因为美国及其盟友选择了空袭作为打击ISIS的主要方式。这将不可避免地对平民造成附加伤害。

America is good at dropping bombs exactly where it wants to, but it can’t control the explosion and those who might get hurt as the dust settles. The Pentagon knows this, of course, but it has historically done a very poor job policing itself and its allies to take all available measures to minimize innocent deaths.

美国很擅长精确投放炸弹，但是它无法控制爆炸和那些在尘埃落定后可能会受到伤害的人。五角大楼当然知道这一点，但从历史上来看，它在监督自己和盟友采取一切可用的措施将无辜死亡人数降到最低方面做得很差。

Thanks to Khan and Gopal, we now have statistics showing just how poor a job the military has done — and just how many civilians are paying the price.

多亏了Khan和Gopal，我们现在掌握了显示军方的工作有多糟糕以及有多少平民正在为此付出代价的统计数据。


[–]NoHorseInThisRace 3759 points 8 hours ago 
    The US-led coalition claims that one civilian has been killed in every 157 airstrikes.

“以美国为首的联军声称平均每157次空袭中有1名平民丧生。”    

Who would really be so naive to believe that number?

谁会如此天真地相信这个数字呢?    

[–]perfectionits 1749 points 7 hours ago 
The actual claim is: 1 civilian killed for every 163 bombs

实际的说法是:每投下163枚炸弹就有1名平民丧生。

Of course qualifying as a civilian is very difficult if you are a military age male.

当然，如果你是一名达到服兵役年龄的男性，是很难被视为平民的。

[–]Renovate_America 1445 points 4 hours ago* 
    Of course qualifying as a civilian is very difficult if you are a military age male.

“当然，如果你是一名达到服兵役年龄的男性，是很难被视为平民的。”

Nail on the head, right here. They've altered the definition of militant so much that just about any adult male caught in one of their airstrikes is classified as an enemy combatant. It makes "civilian casualties" reported a lot lower than what it really is.

钉在头上，就在这里。他们大大更改了对激进分子的定义，以至于任何一个在他们的空袭中被抓住的成年男性都被归类为敌方战斗人员。这让所公布的“平民伤亡”的数据要比实际数据低得多。

This has been going on since we invaded, post-9/11.

自从911之后，这种情况就一直在发生。

We're actively creating more terrorists by the day, which will keep us entrenched in the Middle East for the foreseeable future..

我们正在主动制造出更多的恐怖分子，在可预见的未来，这将保证我们在中东地区的地位。

Which is exactly what some people want, they're still making money.

这正是一些人想要的，他们仍然在从中赚钱。
    
[–]PhotorazonCannon 284 points 4 hours ago 
It's been going on since Vietnam...

自越战开始就一直是如此……
    
[–]YellowShorts 158 points 3 hours ago 
It's been going on since the beginning of war. Let's not act like this is recent or exclusive to the US

从战争爆发之后就一直如此。希望我们不要这么做，这是近代美国才会做的事情。
    
[–]PhatDuck 223 points 3 hours ago 
I think the difference being is that now it pays to stay at war, in the past, like pre-20th century, it paid to WIN wars. Now, huge companies make billions out of the military industrial complex. In the past countries wanted to actually win and stay at the top and in control because the spoils of war was looting your opponents and then taxing their people and using their resources. What some are accusing the USA of doing since at least Vietnam is trying to prolong wars and be at perpetual war in order to reap the benefits of never actually winning, THIS is new and a modern way of making money from war.

我认为不同之处在于，在过去——比如20世纪之前——这是为了赢得战争所付出的代价。现在，大公司从军工联合体中赚了数以十亿计的美元。在过去，国家想要真正取得胜利，保持霸主地位，掌控局势，因为战争的战利品正是通过掠夺你的对手，然后对他们的人民征税，利用他们的资源而获得的。有些人指责美国至少从越南战争以来所做的便是试图延长战争的进程，让战争持续不断地进行，其目的是为了收割永远无法真正取胜的利益。这是一种发战争财的现代方式。
    
[–]Odds_ 145 points 3 hours ago 
Worth noting that the USA actually takes a huge net loss by being at war - it's only Lockheed Martin & co, and the politicians in their pockets, who end up enriched.

值得注意的是，美国在战争中实际上出现了巨额的净亏损——只有洛克希德马丁公司和那些与他们有着利益联系的政客才最终赚得盆满钵满。
    
[–]phoenix2448 61 points 2 hours ago 
The same groups that always benefit from country-wide things, such as our economic system itself.

这些人总是能够从全国性局势中受益，比如我们的经济体系。
   
[–]TheOctazone 12 points 2 hours ago 
And what might that system be?? ?

这个体系可能是什么东西？
    
[–]TheYang 14 points 1 hour ago 
take from the poor, give to the rich

劫贫济富的体系

[–]The_Follower1 2 points 1 hour ago 
You say that as if the parties who benefit care about net results for the country.

你说的好像那些获得利益者在乎这个国家会招致什么结果一样。
    
[–]Odds_ 2 points 1 hour ago 
Of course they don't. If they did, there wouldn't be a need to differentiate between the specific corrupt politicians in question (which, in the US at the moment, seems to be pretty much all of them) and the interests of the country as a whole.

他们当然不会。如果他们真的这样做了，就不需要在有问题的腐败政客(目前看来，在美国，这类政客似乎包括了所有人)和整个国家的利益之间做出区分了。

[–]RobotCaesar 46 points 3 hours ago 
Wars were always a source of income for certain parts of society. The problem is that you use to have a real chance of losing, so you tried to finish it quickly. The US has had no chance of retaliation in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not like if the US finally pulls out, Afghanistan will mount an invasion of the US.

战争一直是社会中某一部分人的收入来源。问题是，当你有可能失败的时候，你会试着尽快结束它。在韩国、越南、伊拉克和阿富汗，美国没有机会展开回击。如果美国最终撤军，阿富汗是不可能会发动对美国的入侵的。

[–]Delita007 5 points 1 hour ago 
Well we aren't at war against Afghanistan so there would be no reason for them to attack us.

我们不是在和阿富汗作战，所以他们没有理由攻击我们。
    
[–]RobotCaesar 12 points 1 hour ago 
I read somewhere that 90% of Afghani people don't know about 9/11 and have no idea why we are there. Some of them think that we are part of the same force that was the soviets in the 1980's. So I guess my point is it doesn't really matter, they are not going to retaliate in an effective way.

我在某个地方看到，90%的阿富汗人不知道911事件，也不知道我们为什么会出现在那里。他们中的一些人认为我们是1980年代入侵阿富汗的苏联军队的一部分。所以我猜我这并不重要，他们不会以一种有效的方式进行报复的。

[–]thefarkinator 4 points 2 hours ago 
I mean it used to be that millions of people died in wars. That doesn't happen anymore to countries like the US. You go ask Yemen, Syria, etc if they're making money off their wars.

我的意思是，曾经有数百万人死于战争。这种情况永远不会发生在美国这样的国家。如果他们从战争中赚到了钱，你得去问问问也门，叙利亚等国家。

And also, people prolonged WWI to keep making money. People paid off people so they could keep factories from being bombed that were critical to the way efforts. Look up Basil Zaharoff.

另外，人们为了赚钱而延长了一战的进程。一些人付钱给另一些人，这样他们就可以避免工厂被轰炸了，这是至关重要的。可以搜搜看Basil Zaharoff。

[–]crowbahr 19 points 3 hours ago 
Yes and no.

答案既是肯定的，也是否定的。

Vietnam was the start of "Body Count" wars really. You started to measure success by how many killed more than territory taken.

越南是第一场真正开始“计算死亡人数”的战争。从这时候开始，衡量成功的标志是有多少人被杀，而不是被占领的地区有多大。
    
[–]phoenix2448 18 points 2 hours ago 
Mostly because there stopped being a front-line or a clear goal of “winning”. Gotta make it seem like you’re making progress somehow.

最主要的原因是，它不再是前线或“胜利”的明确目标。一定要看起来好像你在取得进步。
    
[–]acideater 11 points 2 hours ago 
Good point. Ken Burns, "The Vietnam War" is excellent if you really want the details of Vietnam from both sides. We never get the Vietnamese perspective of both North and South. The document gives them and their views equal screen time.

说的好。如果你真的想两方面获得越南战争的细节，那么Ken Burns 的《越南战争》是一部很不错的着作。我们过去从来没有听闻过越南北部和南部两个地区的人的观点。这部书同等地展示了他们和他们的观点。

I remember one of his interviewees stating that turning to body count as a measure of success wasn't effective. It led to number inflation and loose classification of enemies. Also stated that the general population doesn't care that you killed 10 enemy soldiers for every 1 American death. The population really cares about that 1 American death.

我记得他书中的一位受访者说过，把死亡人数作为衡量成功与否的标准并不有效。它导致了数字的膨胀和对敌人的宽泛归类。他还同时指出：普通民众并不关心你为了一个美国人的死亡而杀死了10个敌方士兵。美国人真正关心的只是一名美国人的死亡。
  
[–]Nakedpolarbearfudge 56 points 3 hours ago* 
I mean, war for the sole sake of fueling an industrial, global megaeconomy was kind of pioneered by the US unless I'm missing something.

我的意思是，推动工业化的全球巨型经济体的发展是美国所倡导的，除非我遗漏了什么。

Edit: I understand that previous empires conquered land, resources, and people by means of war. I am stating that perpetual war being the end goal is something new. If any of those previous empires' enemies would just surrender, OP empire would be wealthy and vast. In our current situation, the munitions, vehicles, and construction purchased and expended is more profitable for a select few than any spoils of war ever could be.

编辑：我知道过去的帝国通过战争的手段获得了土地、资源和人民。我认为，将无休止的战争作为最终目标是一个新颖的概念。如果之前这些帝国的敌人都投降了，那么这些帝国就会变得富裕和庞大。在我们目前的情况下，购买和消耗弹药、车辆和建筑要比任何战利品都更有利可图。
    
[–]provokedcarp 34 points 3 hours ago 
Yeah I don't think THE BEGINNING of war really cared about the definition of civilian vs militant...

是的，我不认为战争的发动者真正在乎平民和激进分子的定义
    
[–]campelm 6 points 3 hours ago 
The strong will do what they will and the weak will endure what they must.

强者会做他们想做的事，弱者则要忍受他们必须忍受的事。

Just to be clear, this isn't an endorsement, just historical context.

需要澄清的是，我不支持这个观点，但历史就是如此。
    
[–]POGtastic 2 points 2 hours ago 
    It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be.

法官说：男人对战争的看法没有什么不同。战争仍在延续。还要问男人他们对石头的看法。战争始终存在。在人类存在之前，战争已经在那里等着他们了。最终的交易等待着最终的实施者。这就是它的本来面貌，也是它将来的样子。

[–]snowcone_wars 33 points 3 hours ago 
I mean, if you ignore almost every empire that has ever existed, then yeah I guess that would be true.

我的意思是，如果你忽略了几乎所有那些曾经存在过的帝国，那么是的，我想那是对的。
    
[–]bailuff 18 points 3 hours ago 
Rome?

是罗马吗？
    
[–]J_Goode 18 points 3 hours ago 
Britain was on that from the beginning

英国从一开始就是这样
    
[–]Gefroan 29 points 3 hours ago 
Are you just misunderstanding what an empire was or is? The British Empire to name one specifically. The entire purpose of colonies and the rape of Asia, North America and Africa was to fuel many European and otherwise empires huge global economies.

你只是误解了什么是过去的和现在的帝国。大英帝国特指一个帝国。殖民和蹂躏亚洲、北美和非洲的整个目的就是为了给欧洲和其他地方的许多帝国提供体量庞大的全球经济作为燃料。

Go back further and you could list Rome as doing the same.

更进一步地说，你可以把罗马也列入这个名单。

The fact of the matter is, none of this is new and it's been going on since humanity could first feel greed and envy.

事实是，这一切都不是新出现的，它一直都在进行，因为人类感受到的第一件事就是贪婪和嫉妒。

[–]Amiib00 5 points 3 hours ago 
Not at all.

根本不是这样的。
  
[–]puevo216 6 points 3 hours ago 
Wasn't England more or less doing that when they first started founding colonies?

当英国第一次开始建立殖民地的时候，他们是不是或多或少这样做了?
    
[–]AnorexicBuddha 8 points 3 hours ago 
British Empire would like a word with you.

大英帝国有句话想和你说。

And the Romans.

罗马人也是如此。

And the Mongols.

还有蒙古人。

[–]KGBFriedChicken02 5 points 3 hours ago 
Idk england was pretty bad in their empire days

我不知道英国在帝国时代有这么糟糕
    
[–]number1tryptophan 10 points 3 hours ago 
The war in the Middle East is hardly “fueling” America’s economy.

中东地区的战争几乎无法“助推”美国的经济。

[–]Klynn7 4 points 3 hours ago 
Yeah because no one ever went to war for wealth before the US...

是的，因为在美国之前从来没有人为财富而发动战争

[–]VoteRonaldRayGun 15 points 3 hours ago 
It became a bigger problem in the Spanish Civil War and onwards. Franco would simply call everyone a rebel while committing genocide. The Nazis too the same strategy with their definition of 'partisan' which was usually applied to unarmed civilians killed in mass executions.

从西班牙内战时期开始，这成为了一个更严重的问题。弗兰科在进行种族灭绝的时候，只要把每个人都称为叛军就行了。纳粹对“党派”的定义也是采用了一样的策略，这种策略通常适用于在大规模处决中手无寸铁的平民。

Though the US aren't genocidal, many in the administrations have been happy to redefine 'enemy combatant' to suit their own political goals.

尽管美国不是在进行种族灭绝，但政府中的许多人都乐于重新定义“敌方战斗人员”，以适应他们自己的政治目标。
    

[–]maple_the_red 34 points 3 hours ago 

"Though the US aren't genocidal"

“尽管美国不是在进行种族灭绝”

Indigenous people be like

想想看那些原住民
    
[–]VoteRonaldRayGun 7 points 3 hours ago 
I meant in recent years.

我说的是最近这些年
    
[–]TylersVibe 17 points 3 hours ago 
man thats kinda recent. u know how fucked they still are?

尽管是最近这些年的事情，但是你知道他们一直以来都这么操蛋吗？
    
[–]maple_the_red 10 points 2 hours ago 
Right on brother. "Kill the Indian save the man" boarding schools were still operating into the 1980's. Sterilization of indigenous women was happening in the 70's and 80's. I think the ongoing crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and the recent events surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline are another chapter in the same history.

你说的对，兄弟。“为了救了人可以杀死印第安人”，在上世纪80年代，寄宿学校仍在灌输这个理念。在70年代和80年代对原住民妇女实施了绝育手术。我认为持续发生的原住民妇女失踪和被杀害的危机，以及最近发生的达科塔输油管道事件，都是同一历史的不同篇章。

[–]Algruen 85 points 3 hours ago 
Nearly everything we do in the Middle East makes more terrorists.

我们在中东做的几乎所有事情都在制造更多的恐怖分子。

We arm rebels, help them fuck up their country for whatever reason, and then when the hard and necessary work of rebuilding comes around we just leave and say "good luck, thanks for being our puppets!"

我们出于某些原因武装了叛军，帮助他们将自己的国家搞得一团糟，然后，当重建的艰难而必要的工作开始时，我们就离开了，并且说“祝你好运，感谢你们成为我们的木偶！”
    
[–]Scientolojesus 31 points 3 hours ago 
"We'll be back in a few years to wage war on you! Enjoy the weapons and training while you can! Up, up, and awaaaay!"

“我们将在几年内卷土重来，对你们发动战争！尽情享受武器和操练吧！起来，都起来，然后滚开！”
    
[–]PunksPrettyMuchDead 22 points 2 hours ago* 
    help them fuck up their country for whatever reason

“出于某些原因帮助他们将自己的国家搞得一团糟”

My dude that reason has always been maintaining capitalism as the dominant ideology

伙计，这个原因一直以来都是：维系资本主义作为主导意识形态的地位
    
[–]Algruen 14 points 2 hours ago 
I believe that and you clearly believe that, but I find most people would rather sell their grandma than admit that or consider it as a possibility.

我相信这一点，你显然也相信这一点，但我发现大多数人宁愿卖掉他们的祖母，也不愿意承认它，或者认为这是可能的。

An exaggeration to be sure, but, I feel, an accurate one.

这么说有点夸张，但我觉得这是一种准确的表述。
    
[–]CaptainMoonman 5 points 2 hours ago 
I just wish people didn't continue to not believe it when it's explained to the that these movements gained real traction when the US trained, funded, and armed them to fight the government of communist Afghanistan and the Soviets who came in to fight the groups being funded. Operation Cyclone was a hell of a thing.

我只是希望当有人解释它的时候，人们不要再相信它。当美国提供训练和资助，并武装他们来对抗共产主义阿富汗和苏联的政府时，这些运动拥有了真正的吸引力。“旋风行动”是一件很可怕的事情。

[–]Bashkir 6 points 2 hours ago 
Reminds me of that episode of black mirror where the army gets implants for their eyes that shows them all people of a certain race, group, etc as mutated monsters so they have no hesitation in killing them. "Roaches" I believe it was

这让我想起了《黑镜》里的那一幕，军队在士兵的眼睛中植入了某种装置，从而让他们所看到了所有人都成为某个特定种族和群体的成员，成为突变的怪物，这样这些士兵们就能毫不犹豫地杀死了他们。《蟑螂》，我相信这一集的名字是这个，
    
[–]Bluest_waters 18 points 3 hours ago 
    We're actively creating more terrorists by the day, which will keep us entrenched in the Middle East for the foreseeable future..

“我们正在主动制造出更多的恐怖分子，在可预见的未来，这将保证我们在中东地区的地位。”

by design

这是故意的

perpetual warfare, unlimited money for the MIC

无休止的战争为军工联合体带来了无数的金钱

by design

这是故意的
    
[–]JonRemzzzz 12 points 3 hours ago 
Doesn’t it go the other way as well? Aren’t most terrorist that we are fighting part timers? Civilians with AK’s. They run and hide back with the civilians and when it draws fire from us they claim that they were civilians

难道不是反其道而行吗？难道我们不是在打击最可怕的恐怖分子吗？那是一些手持AK步枪的平民。他们和平民一起逃跑、藏匿，当他们遭到我们的火力攻击时，他们又声称自己是平民。

[–]ISpendAllDayOnReddit 29 points 4 hours ago* 
It's also difficult to say that those were definitely civilians when the militants dress and act and pretend to be civilians. I'm sure most of the civilian casualties are not confirmed civilians, but people who are possibly civilians.

当武装分子通过穿着打扮和言行举止来假扮成平民的时候，很难说这些人肯定是平民。我敢肯定大多数丧命平民都不会被确认为平民，而是可能成为平民的人。

These civilians often aren't just random bystanders. A bomb will hit a house with 5 militants inside and kill them as well as the other 5 people they live with. People who are living with and thus supporting these terrorists. If ISIS sets up motars on top of a house, should you not bomb the house because you don't know who lives there? You know that the house is being used to launch mortars, that's good enough.

这些平民通常不只是随机的旁观者。一枚炸弹如果击中一所房子，杀死了里面的五名激进分子，同时也炸死了其他五个和他们住在一起的人。如果ISIS在一座房子的顶部部署了迫击炮，在不知道谁住在里面的情况下，难道你不应该轰炸这所房子吗？你知道这座房子是用来发射迫击炮的，这已经足够了。

No, it doesn't meet the judicial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn't apply to the enemy when you're fighting a war. If most of these casualties was the US bombing random unaffiliated people then that would be one thing. But actually they're bombing specific targets and hitting that targets friends and family in the process. That's part of war. If you don't want your friends and family killed, don't keep them in the same building you're fighting a war out of.

不，它不符合超出合理怀疑范畴的司法标准。但是，当你在进行一场战争时，这并不适用于敌人。如果大多数伤亡是美国随机轰炸无关人员而造成的话，那么这是有问题的。但实际上，他们轰炸了特定的目标，并在这个过程中打击了恐怖分子的朋友和家人。这是战争的一部分。如果你不希望你的朋友和家人被杀，那就不要把他们安置在你正用于作战的那一幢大楼里。
    
[–]DownvoteToKarmaHell 94 points 3 hours ago 
You know a drone strike hit a wedding party right?

你知道无人机袭击了一场婚礼的事吧吗？

And has killed an American citizen?

你知道它杀害了一名美国公民吗？

Civilian casualties make us no better than the terrorists, and breed more terrorists.

平民的伤亡让我们和恐怖分子没有什么差别，而且这么做还滋生了更多的恐怖分子。

Then there’s also the isis was simply created by the power vacuum the US created.

此外，ISIS也只是由美国制造的权力真空所催生出来的。
    
[–]Hubbell 49 points 3 hours ago 
That citizen was literally an enemy combatant in a war zone.

那个公民实际上是处于交战区的敌方战斗人员。
    
[–]OneMoreGamer 13 points 2 hours ago 
Didn't we kill his 8 year old daughter? Seems he was fighting the bad guys. Even if we killed her afterwords, that still makes us the bad guys.

我们不是杀了他八岁大的女儿吗?看起来当时他是在和坏人作战。即使是我们杀了他女儿这件事也会让我们成为坏人。
    
[–]cannadabis [score hidden] 51 minutes ago 
"Are we the baddies?"

“我们是坏人吗？”
    
[–]KenshiQuestionAcc 41 points 3 hours ago* 
He was also literally extorted by the FBI when he was still a moderate Muslim, which pushed him toward terrorism. And then we effectively martyred him and immortalized his extremist views with that drone strike. This was, of course, not long after missing him, killing 39 civilians (including 9 pregnant women and 21 children) in an area that fought extremism just as hard as we do (harder, probably). I wonder how many new enemy combatants in a war zone that move made?

当他还是一个温和的穆斯林时，他遭到了美国联邦调查局的严刑拷打，这将他推入到了恐怖主义的怀抱当中。然后我们就用无人机袭击了他，让他的极端主义观点得以永远流传。当然，这是在一个如同我们过去那样艰难地（可能更艰难）打击极端主义的地区错失对他的致命一击并且误杀了39名平民(包括9名孕妇和21名儿童)之后发生的事情了。我想知道在展开了这一行动之后，在一个交战区里会出现多少新的敌军战斗人员？

We've also now killed his 14-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter.

我们现在还杀死了他14岁的儿子和8岁的女儿。

Is he responsible for the damage he did? Yes. Should he have been held accountable? Yes.

他应该对自己所造成的伤害负责吗？是的。他应该被追究责任吗？是的。

Shouldn't we, too?

但是我们难道不应该被追究责任吗？

I highly recommend the book Objective Troy by NYT writer Scott Shane.

我强烈推荐《纽约时报》作家斯科特·肖恩的着作《客观的特洛伊》。

[–]KenshiQuestionAcc 18 points 3 hours ago* 
Oh, we didn't just kill an American citizen, we also killed his teenage son and 8-year-old daughter after pushing that American citizen, who was a moderate, into extremism by extorting him.

噢，我们不仅仅杀死了一个美国公民，我们还杀了他十几岁大的儿子和八岁大的女儿，在通过折磨他，将这个温和的美国公民逼成一个极端分子之后。

Not to mention killing 39 other civilians (including 9 pregnant women and 21 children) in pursuit of him.

更不用说我们还杀死其他39名平民(包括9名孕妇和21名儿童)。
   
[–]KruppeTheWise 8 points 3 hours ago 
Right so they should all line up in formation for the drone strike? Imagine if North Korea had space lasers that the US couldn't defend against, like the Iraqi can't defend against a hellfire. You think American soldiers would stand outside with a uniform on staring up at the space laser?

所以他们都应该排队接受无人机的袭击吗？想象一下，如果朝鲜拥有连美国都无法防御的太空激光武器，就像伊拉克无法抵御“地狱之火”一样，你认为美国士兵会穿着制服站在外面，盯着太空射来的激光看吗?
    
[–]theknees17 14 points 3 hours ago 
LOL @using civilians as meat shields. Where do you think these people eat and sleep? Do you think they build a 12 story barracks with a neon sign flashing ISIS fighters stay for free, no vancancy? We have been involved militarily in the middle East since the mid 1900s, most if not all of that with military presence. The only place they can fight is in cities and near civilians, cause that's where this military group, which the US helped spawn due to OUR presence in their cities, lives.

哈哈，将平民当作肉盾。你认为这些人在哪里吃饭睡觉？你认为是他们建造了一个12层的营房，装着霓虹灯，让ISIS的战士们免费居住，还没有空房？自20世纪中期以来，我们就一直卷入中东地区的战事。他们唯一能战斗的地方是城市和平民居住区附近，因为这些地方是这个军事组织的基地，美国在帮助他们大量滋生，因为我们闯入到了他们的城市里，闯入到了他们的生活当中。
    
[–]Scientolojesus 10 points 3 hours ago 
Wait....so you're saying they don't all hang out in one building that advertises that ISIS stays for free?...

等等....所以你的意思是，他们不是都在一个被认为ISIS成员免费居住的大楼里闲逛？

Oh haha you mean that they have to pay right? Obviously they don't get to stay for free, I mean that hotel is running a business after all.

哈哈，你的意思是他们必须付钱？很明显，他们不能免费住在里面，我的意思是，酒店毕竟要经营生意。
    
[–]theknees17 4 points 3 hours ago 
Oh yes pardon me, my mistake. That's how ISIS leaders get enough money to buy all those weapons

哦，对不起，我的错。这就是ISIS领导人获得足够的资金来购买所有这些武器的方式了。

[–]Bananasauru5rex 14 points 3 hours ago 
You don't know what you're talking about. Purposefully killing civilians without military necessity is a war crime. And convenience doesn't constitute military necessity.

你根本不知道你在说什么。在没有军事上的必要性的时候，故意杀害平民是一桩战争罪。而便宜行事并不构成军事上的必要性。

Although if by "that's part of war" you mean "war breeds war crimes" then I would agree with you.

如果你所说的“这是战争的一部分”的意思是“战争滋生了战争罪”，那么我同意你的观点。    

[–]RetroFutureKid 104 points 3 hours ago 
The Obama administration was behind redefining civilian casualties of war. Teenage boys are not considered civilians in these casualties. They're considered militants. It also didn't matter if they were innocent American boys. They don't get due process.

奥巴马政府重新定义了战争中的平民伤亡。在这些伤亡中，十几岁的男孩不被认为是平民。他们被视为激进分子。即便他们是无辜的美国男孩，那也没什么要紧的。他们没有执行正当的程序。

He had really good PR. Most people didn't even question that.

他的公关做得真的很好。绝大多数人甚至都不提这茬。

Thanks, Obama. /s

感谢你，奥巴马。
    
[–]SpaceRaccoon 43 points 3 hours ago 
And he's a Nobel peace prize laureate.

他还是一位诺贝尔和平奖获得者。
    
[–]Veylon 16 points 2 hours ago 
That reflects more on the guys handing out Nobels than on Obama. They gave him one for getting elected before he'd even gotten the chance to attempt anything Nobel-worthy.

这更多地反映了颁发诺贝尔奖的人，而不是奥巴马。他们给了他这么一个机会，在还没来得及尝试做出任何配得上这个奖的事情之前，他就被选上了。

A bad decision, too be sure, but they've made worse.

当然，这是一个糟糕的决定，但他们曾经还干过更糟糕的事情。
    
[–]pinch_the_grinch 7 points 3 hours ago 
You're not wrong. The rest of the world saw this. But you were supposed to move forward from that point. What's going on right now does not look like progress.

你没有错。世界其他地方的人都看到了这一点。但是你应该从这一点向前看。现在正在发生的事情看起来不像是在进步。

[–]InconvenientProof 39 points 3 hours ago 
Obama dropped more than 20,000 bombs on middle eastern countries in 8 years and amazingly holds on to the Nobel Peace Award given to him at the beginning of his uninterrupted wartime Presidency.

过去八年来，奥巴马在中东国家投下了2万多枚炸弹，令人惊讶的是，他是在持续不断发动战争的总统任期之初就获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
    
[–]GorillaDownDicksOut 33 points 2 hours ago 
He bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital, meaning one Nobel Peace Prize winner bombed another Nobel Peace Prize winner.

他炸死了一名无国界医生，这意味着一位诺贝尔和平奖得主炸死了另一位诺贝尔和平奖得主。

[–]coredumperror 16 points 2 hours ago 
I don’t see how this is relevant. Sure, it made little sense that Obama got that peace prize. But it’s not like he campaigned for it, or asked for it in any way.

我看不出这有什么关系。当然，奥巴马获得和平奖简直就是胡扯。但这并不是他自己去争取的，也不是以任何方式求得的。

[–]coolaznkenny 5 points 3 hours ago 
They did the same thing in the vietnam war.

他们在越南战争中也做了同样的事情。
    
[–]newpua_bie 3 points 2 hours ago 
Didn't they classify mothers and children as militants in the apache videos that have been publicly released?

在已经公开发布的阿帕奇视频中，难道他们不是把母亲和孩子归类为武装分子吗?
    
[–]Golden_Ratio_ 2 points 3 hours ago 
Who's stopping them from lying?

是谁在阻止他们说谎？
    
[–]RiikG 2 points 2 hours ago 
so its 31 for every 163? That is 19%, like rolling a dice in the desert.

所以每163颗炸弹就炸死了31个平民？这是19%的概率，就像在沙漠里掷骰子一样。

[–]exclamationmarek 101 points 6 hours ago 
Maybe only one civilian per 157 airstrikes manages to correctly and personally fill out the "I was killed by an airstrike despite being a civilian" complaint form and send it to the pentagon.

或许是每157次空袭中只有一名平民能够正确地填写“我被空袭炸死，尽管是平民”的投诉，并将其发送给五角大楼。
    
[–]OathOfFeanor 13 points 5 hours ago* 
Don't be silly, they are dead and can't fill out paperwork.

别傻了，他们已经死了，根本无法填写文书。

It's only those few cases where the family survived and was able to submit the paperwork.

只有在少数情况下，当家庭成员幸存下来时，他们才能够提交书面材料。
    
[–]stevegcook 14 points 4 hours ago 
Nah, that isn't nearly enough. Once the paperwork is received, the military conducts an investigation on itself to see if there were civilian casualties. And surprise, surprise, the military usually doesn't find sufficient evidence to accuse itself of that.

不，那还不够。一旦收到文书，军方就会进行调查，以确定是否有平民伤亡。令人惊讶的是，军方通常没有找到足够的证据来指控自己干过这些事。