40 comments

  • bitcurious 13 minutes ago

    > The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.

    If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?

      lukan 10 minutes ago

      If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.

      If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.

      But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.

        AnotherGoodName 5 minutes ago

        To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.

      mcmcmc 8 minutes ago

      [delayed]

      lokar 11 minutes ago

      It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.

  • iugtmkbdfil834 36 minutes ago

    I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.

  • cocacola1 19 minutes ago

    It’s 2006. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.

    It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.

      jMyles 16 minutes ago

      Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.

      To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.

  • shadowtree 11 minutes ago

    Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...

  • bix6 40 minutes ago

    And all the republicans will still vote red for the lying, cheating, grifting man.

    All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?

      atmavatar 26 minutes ago

      For a sizable fraction of people, when the facts conflict with their biases, they choose to reject the facts and double-down on their biases.

        lokar 10 minutes ago

        Racism is a very powerful belief system.

      silisili 32 minutes ago

      People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).

        HumblyTossed 8 minutes ago

        I don't trust polling.

        jimt1234 12 minutes ago

        I heard a good quote once: People don't vote to say thank you. People vote to say fuck you.

        dylan604 25 minutes ago

        Both times Trump won, the polls predicted he would lose.

          PenguinCoder 19 minutes ago

          Legally can't run a third time or be voted for again. But then again, legality hasn't stopped the things he does. Others need to step up.

          ceejayoz 24 minutes ago

          Not by anything like the 8-9 points we're seeing in midterm polling right now.

        zmgsabst 6 minutes ago

        Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.

      yakz 34 minutes ago

      They had a firm belief that the reports and statistics were fake. Let's see how this turns out.

      *by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed

      verdverm 16 minutes ago

      May I assume you ask "for what?" rhetorically?

      underlipton 30 minutes ago

      Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.

      jimt1234 35 minutes ago

      > ...and for what?

      To keep the grift going, of course.

        Buttons840 20 minutes ago

        That's fair to say, but lacks details.

        Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.

        There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.

        I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.

        Corruption has existed before, but it's never been this out in the open.

          kraken_cult 5 minutes ago

          Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.

  • option 9 minutes ago

    US murdered 123 children in school, this has to be the top story of all world news for a year

  • micromacrofoot 38 minutes ago

    now we get to wonder why

    we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere

    so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?

      Avicebron 32 minutes ago

      Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.

        dylan604 23 minutes ago

        > they can't lose.

        Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

          frmersdog 6 minutes ago

          You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.

          Avicebron 19 minutes ago

          I never said it wasn't going to be an incompetence slugfest

      ceejayoz 33 minutes ago

      > so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?

      They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.

        micromacrofoot 30 minutes ago

        Indeed it's likely foolish to read into all the pure stupidity at this point

          dylan604 22 minutes ago

          That's the point, right? If you lie about everything, nothing really matters

      lokar 8 minutes ago

      In today's information environment, why would you ever admit to anything that hurts you? There seems to be no penalty for dishonesty.

      _doctor_love 22 minutes ago

      During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.

        vkou a minute ago

        In a conflict, the side that is winning is the side that still has the will to fight.

      verdverm 12 minutes ago

      Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)

      He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly

      amelius 29 minutes ago

      > so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?

      Because they claimed a "flawless victory".