citation_needed

I'll bet you, it's the same people browsing this site as well.

That I doubt. The discussions on here seem a tad more enlightened and articulate.

The tragedy is, to the people calling the shots (ie. the invading military or government), a foreign civilian's life would probably be worth far less than $100,000.

As a previous comment notes, civilians killed are thought of as 'collateral'. That's just not acceptable. The burden lies with the occupying/invading forces to do everything possible to make sure civilians aren't killed or harmed in any way. Even actions that would lead to rations being withheld or basic needs not being met could be considered a breach of international humanitarian law and the fourth Geneva Convention.

"While 14 al-Qaeda were killed, some 687 civilian deaths also occurred…"

That is profoundly disturbing. How can governments justify the continued use of drones with statistics like that? There needs to be an ethical debate, yes, and urgently.

I use my iPod Touch's Notes app to jot down things I need to do, buy or remember. It's cumbersome, but since it's the device I carry around, it's the obvious choice.

On the contrary, more page views do lead to higher ad revenues. If Gawker is the second highest referrer, that means it's actually contributing to the revenue The Post earns by way of its website.