6 ms·

You appear to be making the case that the 65% statistic of Gazans killed by Israel shouldn't be alarming since it merely is converging on the demographic makeup

by kuhewa 2y ago

You appear to be making the case that the 65% statistic of Gazans killed by Israel shouldn't be alarming since it merely is converging on the demographic makeup of the population. I'd argue that it is very alarming when military casualties converge on the general populations demographics and not the demographics of actual combatants.

jiggawatts 2y ago
All I'm saying is that if any other country attacked Gaza using any normal means of war, they'd end up with the same statistic. Israel is not doing anything out of the ordinary for war. The statistics you quoted is a side-effect of Gaza's demographics. Note that I don't condone Israel's actions in Gaza. I'm just saying that those actions are no worse than one would expect, but this statistic is purposefully deceptive and is being trumpeted across the Internet specifically to make Israel look worse than they are actually acting. You support one of the two sides above the other. That's your right. But please don't support them through chosen talking points intended to deceive the audience. PS: One of the two sides in this war targeted civilians on purpose and failed at doing so. The other site targeted combatants and failed at doing so. Which would you say is the more superior position?
- amrocha 2y ago
  There’s no deception done imo. Your argument is that it’s ok that Israel has killed this many women and kids because they’re over represented in the population. Most people’s perspective is that you shouldn’t kill kids and women and target civilians, regardless of anything else. And you’re ignoring the mountain of evidence of israel deliberately targeting civilians. Just the other day the times published a thorough report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. That truth does not square with your “it’s just collateral damage” argument.
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    > report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. Link please.
    - funcrush 2y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-... https://www.nytco.com/press/response-to-recent-criticisms-on-new-york-times-opinion-essay/ https://www.nytco.com/press/response-to-recent-criticisms-on...
      - jiggawatts 2y ago
        For reference, I'm willing to accept every factual statement of the article: the doctor worked in Gaza, he saw many children with bullet wounds to the head or chest, many were single shots, etc... A relative of mine is a nurse working in a hospital. I noticed a long time ago that her perspective on the statistics of illnesses is very skewed. She sees only very sick patients because -- duh -- she works in a hospital. Hence, she thinks every sniffle of her nephew is an emergency -- because she sees only emergency cases! There are ~40K dead, ~100K wounded in Gaza by the war, of which half are children: about 70K child casualties of which 50K didn't die. Parents and hospitals will prioritise children over adults. A child with multiple gunshot wounds will more than likely die on the spot and not be taken to hospital. A child with a single gunshot wound is more likely to cling to life long enough to make it into a hospital. In absolute terms, the few dozens cases mentioned in the article are just the inevitable statistics. I would be very surprised if doctors in Gaza had not treated many more such cases! I would expect a couple of hundred per hospital (there are only 32) at least. To reiterate: None of this is in any way good, none of the children deserved any of this, and in no way is Israel innocent in the matter. It's just that it is the natural consequence of warfare in a high-density urban setting with that demo.
        amrocha 2y ago
        Mate, idk, now you’re arguing that it’s ok for toddlers to be sniped during war as long as your government claims they were “human shields”. I literally don’t know what to say to that.
        jiggawatts 2y ago
- kuhewa 2y ago
  Just based on your comment, I can promise you I have payed attention to the conflict less than you and have less of a 'dog in the fight' in terms of supporting a side. I just noticed your comment begging the question regarding mortalities that reflect makeup of a civilian population being the null case in urban warfare that needs no explanation. It's a positive claim that requires empirical support, which you aren't providing. A quick squiz would suggest this women+children death toll is the greatest in some time by some margin, despite some quite bloody and urbanised conflicts in recent years [1]. Perhaps you have justified knowledge that this case is different than any other or just better-documented, and the deaths are unavoidable insofar as urban warfare is to be conducted. But even if it is the case that urban warfare should be expected to be conducted quite inefficiently (to the point that combatants are successfully targeted at a rate barely greater than random members of the population), you are also taking it as a given that conducting it at all is justified and shouldn't be alarming. That doesn't appear to be a given by military standards of developed countries: > Destroying an urban area to save it is not an option for commanders. The density of civilian populations in urban areas and the multidimensional nature of the environment make it more likely that even accurate attacks with precision weapons will injure noncombatants.…If collateral damage is likely to be of sufficient magnitude, it may justify avoiding urban operations, which though tactically successful, would run counter to national and strategic objectives. United States Army and Marine Corps 2017 Manual on Urban Operations, quoted in [2] [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-child... [2] https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/04/27/urban-warfare/ https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/04/27/urban-warfa...
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    Please re-read my statements, I’m choosing my words carefully. Urban conflict in general produces civilian casualties with women, men, and children dying in proportions matching the demographics. In the Russia-vs-Ukraine war there are relatively few dead children because the demographics of both counties skews towards adults — not because of the military doctrine of either side. Children make up less than 20% of the population and hence less than 20% of the civilian deaths. Gaza has ridiculously skewed demographics with fully half of the population below the age of 18. (Don’t take my word for it, just Google it.) Hence the civilian deaths in Gaza reflect this skewed demographics. Fifty percent of civilian deaths are children not because Israel is targeting children (as if they were cartoon villains!) but because fifty percent of the civilians are children! I don’t disagree with the facts. It’s just that facts are being presented without the background detail to make Israel look insanely evil. Which they are not… they just a normal amount of evil.

by kuhewa 2y ago

jiggawatts 2y ago

All I'm saying is that if any other country attacked Gaza using any normal means of war, they'd end up with the same statistic. Israel is not doing anything out of the ordinary for war. The statistics you quoted is a side-effect of Gaza's demographics. Note that I don't condone Israel's actions in Gaza. I'm just saying that those actions are no worse than one would expect, but this statistic is purposefully deceptive and is being trumpeted across the Internet specifically to make Israel look worse than they are actually acting. You support one of the two sides above the other. That's your right. But please don't support them through chosen talking points intended to deceive the audience. PS: One of the two sides in this war targeted civilians on purpose and failed at doing so. The other site targeted combatants and failed at doing so. Which would you say is the more superior position?

amrocha 2y ago
There’s no deception done imo. Your argument is that it’s ok that Israel has killed this many women and kids because they’re over represented in the population. Most people’s perspective is that you shouldn’t kill kids and women and target civilians, regardless of anything else. And you’re ignoring the mountain of evidence of israel deliberately targeting civilians. Just the other day the times published a thorough report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. That truth does not square with your “it’s just collateral damage” argument.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  > report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. Link please.
  - funcrush 2y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-... https://www.nytco.com/press/response-to-recent-criticisms-on-new-york-times-opinion-essay/ https://www.nytco.com/press/response-to-recent-criticisms-on...
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      For reference, I'm willing to accept every factual statement of the article: the doctor worked in Gaza, he saw many children with bullet wounds to the head or chest, many were single shots, etc... A relative of mine is a nurse working in a hospital. I noticed a long time ago that her perspective on the statistics of illnesses is very skewed. She sees only very sick patients because -- duh -- she works in a hospital. Hence, she thinks every sniffle of her nephew is an emergency -- because she sees only emergency cases! There are ~40K dead, ~100K wounded in Gaza by the war, of which half are children: about 70K child casualties of which 50K didn't die. Parents and hospitals will prioritise children over adults. A child with multiple gunshot wounds will more than likely die on the spot and not be taken to hospital. A child with a single gunshot wound is more likely to cling to life long enough to make it into a hospital. In absolute terms, the few dozens cases mentioned in the article are just the inevitable statistics. I would be very surprised if doctors in Gaza had not treated many more such cases! I would expect a couple of hundred per hospital (there are only 32) at least. To reiterate: None of this is in any way good, none of the children deserved any of this, and in no way is Israel innocent in the matter. It's just that it is the natural consequence of warfare in a high-density urban setting with that demo.
      - amrocha 2y ago
        Mate, idk, now you’re arguing that it’s ok for toddlers to be sniped during war as long as your government claims they were “human shields”. I literally don’t know what to say to that.
        jiggawatts 2y ago
kuhewa 2y ago
Just based on your comment, I can promise you I have payed attention to the conflict less than you and have less of a 'dog in the fight' in terms of supporting a side. I just noticed your comment begging the question regarding mortalities that reflect makeup of a civilian population being the null case in urban warfare that needs no explanation. It's a positive claim that requires empirical support, which you aren't providing. A quick squiz would suggest this women+children death toll is the greatest in some time by some margin, despite some quite bloody and urbanised conflicts in recent years [1]. Perhaps you have justified knowledge that this case is different than any other or just better-documented, and the deaths are unavoidable insofar as urban warfare is to be conducted. But even if it is the case that urban warfare should be expected to be conducted quite inefficiently (to the point that combatants are successfully targeted at a rate barely greater than random members of the population), you are also taking it as a given that conducting it at all is justified and shouldn't be alarming. That doesn't appear to be a given by military standards of developed countries: > Destroying an urban area to save it is not an option for commanders. The density of civilian populations in urban areas and the multidimensional nature of the environment make it more likely that even accurate attacks with precision weapons will injure noncombatants.…If collateral damage is likely to be of sufficient magnitude, it may justify avoiding urban operations, which though tactically successful, would run counter to national and strategic objectives. United States Army and Marine Corps 2017 Manual on Urban Operations, quoted in [2] [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-child... [2] https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/04/27/urban-warfare/ https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/04/27/urban-warfa...
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  Please re-read my statements, I’m choosing my words carefully. Urban conflict in general produces civilian casualties with women, men, and children dying in proportions matching the demographics. In the Russia-vs-Ukraine war there are relatively few dead children because the demographics of both counties skews towards adults — not because of the military doctrine of either side. Children make up less than 20% of the population and hence less than 20% of the civilian deaths. Gaza has ridiculously skewed demographics with fully half of the population below the age of 18. (Don’t take my word for it, just Google it.) Hence the civilian deaths in Gaza reflect this skewed demographics. Fifty percent of civilian deaths are children not because Israel is targeting children (as if they were cartoon villains!) but because fifty percent of the civilians are children! I don’t disagree with the facts. It’s just that facts are being presented without the background detail to make Israel look insanely evil. Which they are not… they just a normal amount of evil.