3 ms·

>if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it. Please do post your sources for c

>if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it. Please do post your sources for civilian casualty counts so we can better understand this gradient. My understanding is conflicts in population centers of similar size and density elsewhere in the world (parts of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan), the civilian casualty counts are much higher than we are seeing in Ukraine.

jacquesm 5y ago
Not to put too fine a point on it but: this war is far from over and you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith, either someone posts their sources and you will attack them or they won't, either case 'you win'. But it doesn't contribute at all.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  >you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. They are not exact but the range is worth comparing. >Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith. It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. Oh that would work so well for World War II. Really, this is meaningless. > It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse. It's pretty normal for things where such sources are available, such as discussions about scientific subjects or other things that are easy to quantify in an exact manner. When talking about a war in progress it is just a way to throw shade.
throwaway290 5y ago
While you raise a good point, one aspect to consider is that this conflict is still fresh. For example, NATO bombings of Yugoslavia are estimated to have caused ~500 civilian deaths according to Human Rights Watch (Yugoslav estimates are higher) in the whole 2+ months. By comparison, Russian attacks have caused ~600 civilian deaths according to UN (Ukrainian estimates are higher) in 2 weeks so far. Originally I wrote it does not look like a directed murder of Ukrainian civilians by Russian military, i.e. the cases were true casualties of attacks on military targets. I am less certain it remains so clear-cut in recent days though, my impression through the fog of war is that civilian infrastructure destruction and by extension casualties have become more acceptable as a means to put pressure on Ukrainian government. If true, this would be a turn for the worse for ordinary people on the ground.

jacquesm 5y ago

Not to put too fine a point on it but: this war is far from over and you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith, either someone posts their sources and you will attack them or they won't, either case 'you win'. But it doesn't contribute at all.

ashwagary 5y ago
>you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. They are not exact but the range is worth comparing. >Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith. It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. Oh that would work so well for World War II. Really, this is meaningless. > It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse. It's pretty normal for things where such sources are available, such as discussions about scientific subjects or other things that are easy to quantify in an exact manner. When talking about a war in progress it is just a way to throw shade.

throwaway290 5y ago

While you raise a good point, one aspect to consider is that this conflict is still fresh. For example, NATO bombings of Yugoslavia are estimated to have caused ~500 civilian deaths according to Human Rights Watch (Yugoslav estimates are higher) in the whole 2+ months. By comparison, Russian attacks have caused ~600 civilian deaths according to UN (Ukrainian estimates are higher) in 2 weeks so far. Originally I wrote it does not look like a directed murder of Ukrainian civilians by Russian military, i.e. the cases were true casualties of attacks on military targets. I am less certain it remains so clear-cut in recent days though, my impression through the fog of war is that civilian infrastructure destruction and by extension casualties have become more acceptable as a means to put pressure on Ukrainian government. If true, this would be a turn for the worse for ordinary people on the ground.