4 ms·

The comment throws around impossible numbers and unverified claims as if they were facts. “1000% civilian casualties” is nonsense mathematically, and nothing ba

by nelox 1y ago

The comment throws around impossible numbers and unverified claims as if they were facts. “1000% civilian casualties” is nonsense mathematically, and nothing backs it up. There is no public evidence the BBC “banned” the documentary, so that looks like hearsay. Lavender AI is one lead-generation tool among several, with human analysts and other intelligence sources involved. It does not “automatically destroy” hospitals, churches or schools, that is an unfounded exaggeration. Many such sites remain standing, and damage in a war zone is not proof of an AI-driven targeting policy. Social network mapping is used by counterterrorism agencies everywhere. Being on a graph does not mean you are on a kill list. Without solid data on actual misidentifications, repeating anecdotes does not prove the system works the way you claim.

throwaway173738 1y ago
Being on a graph doesn’t mean you’re on a kill list as of now. Who knows what the future may bring?
- nelox 1y ago
  That shifts the argument from evidence to speculation. The original claim was about current operations, not hypothetical futures. If there is no proof that everyone on such a graph is now targeted, then the central accusation falls apart. Counterterrorism systems generate far more leads than they act on, and those leads are filtered by human review and corroborating intelligence. Suggesting “who knows what the future may bring” is not an argument about present facts. Policy and oversight should be debated on actual documented use, not on imagined scenarios.
  - tmnvix 1y ago
    > Counterterrorism systems generate far more leads than they act on, and those leads are filtered by human review and corroborating intelligence. From Wikipedia on Lavender: > The Guardian quoted one source: "I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time."
- walterbell 1y ago
  > what the future may bring Algorithmic predictions, https://hn.algolia.com/?query=predictive%20policing https://hn.algolia.com/?query=predictive%20policing
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
While I appreciate the attempt to remove some of the parent's exaggeration, the conclusion is not wrong. I work in relatively well-regulated industry and I more often than I would like, I read about things that suggest people are, at best, not really following the rules. Now, and this is the part that annoys people like me, the problem of a graph and anecdotes. The reason we are discussing anecdotes has some of its source in the nature of the effort, which by default secretive. In other words, we do not find until years after the fact ( if we do ever officially do ). Add to this normal politics, some sad human tendencies and most can reach a rather quick decision why we only seem to have anecdotes. More to the point, I would like you to invite you to a thought experiment. If you had the responsibility of running IC in US, what would you do? You don't need to answer, but the answer should be clear.
nativeit 1y ago
Impossible numbers and unverifiable facts? Fighting fire with fire it seems.
nothrabannosir 1y ago
> “1000% civilian casualties” is nonsense mathematically I assumed they meant relative to militant casualties. So 10:1 ratio civilian:militant. You could also say 91% , if you use total casualties as the denominator. You could even prefer it. But “nonsense” is uncharitable.
- nelox 1y ago
  Even worst case sources not claiming anywhere near 10:1. As of early–mid August 2025, the Gaza Ministry of Health reports around 61,600 total deaths in Gaza since the war began, without distinguishing between civilians and militants. The Israeli military’s most recent on-record statement (January 2025) claims it has killed about 20,000 Hamas operatives. Subtracting that claim from the total suggests roughly 41,600 civilians have died, an estimated civilian-to-militant ratio of about 2 to 1, though if lower militant-death estimates from independent analysts (10,000–15,000) are used, the ratio could be closer to 3–4 to 1. Both sides’ figures are contested, and humanitarian agencies such as the UN caution that these numbers are unverified and incomplete due to the difficulty of collecting accurate data in the conflict. Sources: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/8/7/israel-hamas-war-live-news https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/8/7/israel-hama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/gaza-war-israel-hamas-palestinian-deaths/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/gaza-war-isr... https://ochaopt.org/updates/humanitarian-snapshot-casualties-gaza-strip-west-bank-7-january-2025 https://ochaopt.org/updates/humanitarian-snapshot-casualties...
  - nelox 1y ago
    Anything Hamas says must be judged against the track record of its past falsehoods and distortions, this is their norm, not the exception. If someone still takes their words at face value, no fact or evidence will change how they see them. Before October 2023, several high-profile Hamas claims were later undermined by evidence: after denying involvement in the June 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri publicly acknowledged the group’s role; while Hamas framed the 2018 “Great March of Return” as largely civilian, its own official Salah al-Bardawil said 50 of the 62 people killed on May 14, 2018 were Hamas members; despite Hamas’s insistence that it did not use civilian sites, the U.N. agency UNRWA repeatedly found rockets stored in its Gaza schools in 2014; and although Hamas dismissed allegations of abuses against Palestinian rivals, Amnesty International documented a 2014 campaign of abductions, torture and summary executions in Gaza. Sources: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-hamas-official-admits-organisation-was-behind-kidnapping-of-teenagers-9682299.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelg... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-politburo-member-bardawil-fifty-martyrs-were-hamas-members https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-politburo-member-bardawil-fif... https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestin...
cookiengineer 1y ago
If the BBC didn't ban the documentary, why do you think there are journalists now protesting in front of the building? What is the reason for those ongoing protests if that didn't happen? Maybe read some world news outside Fox News once in a while, man. The name of the documentary (obfuscated to avoid auto flags, because this is HN after all): Gaza: D0ctors under attack (2025). I agree that the 1000% were hyperbole on my part, but you have to admit that destroying clearly labelled-on-the-outside buildings that are hospitals and houses of international organizations like doctors without borders were all destroyed. Not once, but actually more than 13 hospitals alone (just in case you play the it was a mistake part). People literally died while the IDF/IOF was "checking" their passports, refusing critical treatment, with people literally bleeding out outside the hospital because they were not allowed to enter. Nurses and hospital doctors were stripped naked and beaten to death, in mass interrogation camps. This is not some misidentification issue. This is post-Desert Storm trying to manufacture evidence, at all cost. These types of actions are absolutely disproportionate. (Downvote me all you want, I can take it)
- nelox 1y ago
  I’m not downvoting you, that would be someone else. Protests outside a broadcaster do not prove that a ban occurred. People protest over editorial decisions, framing, or lack of coverage without there being an actual prohibition. Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. The rest of the comment mixes admitted hyperbole with serious accusations that are either unverified or based on partisan sources. The destruction of “clearly labelled” hospitals and aid facilities has been reported, but such claims require independent investigation to determine context — including whether the sites were being used for military purposes, which changes their legal status under the laws of armed conflict. The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. Allegations of executions, beatings, or denial of treatment are grave, but they must be supported by verifiable evidence from credible investigators, not presented as conclusive fact. Calling such events “not misidentification” assumes intent without proof. Assertions about “manufacturing evidence” are also speculation unless backed by concrete documentation. Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness.

by nelox 1y ago

throwaway173738 1y ago

Being on a graph doesn’t mean you’re on a kill list as of now. Who knows what the future may bring?

nelox 1y ago
That shifts the argument from evidence to speculation. The original claim was about current operations, not hypothetical futures. If there is no proof that everyone on such a graph is now targeted, then the central accusation falls apart. Counterterrorism systems generate far more leads than they act on, and those leads are filtered by human review and corroborating intelligence. Suggesting “who knows what the future may bring” is not an argument about present facts. Policy and oversight should be debated on actual documented use, not on imagined scenarios.
- tmnvix 1y ago
  > Counterterrorism systems generate far more leads than they act on, and those leads are filtered by human review and corroborating intelligence. From Wikipedia on Lavender: > The Guardian quoted one source: "I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time."
walterbell 1y ago
> what the future may bring Algorithmic predictions, https://hn.algolia.com/?query=predictive%20policing https://hn.algolia.com/?query=predictive%20policing

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

While I appreciate the attempt to remove some of the parent's exaggeration, the conclusion is not wrong. I work in relatively well-regulated industry and I more often than I would like, I read about things that suggest people are, at best, not really following the rules. Now, and this is the part that annoys people like me, the problem of a graph and anecdotes. The reason we are discussing anecdotes has some of its source in the nature of the effort, which by default secretive. In other words, we do not find until years after the fact ( if we do ever officially do ). Add to this normal politics, some sad human tendencies and most can reach a rather quick decision why we only seem to have anecdotes. More to the point, I would like you to invite you to a thought experiment. If you had the responsibility of running IC in US, what would you do? You don't need to answer, but the answer should be clear.

nativeit 1y ago

Impossible numbers and unverifiable facts? Fighting fire with fire it seems.

nothrabannosir 1y ago

> “1000% civilian casualties” is nonsense mathematically I assumed they meant relative to militant casualties. So 10:1 ratio civilian:militant. You could also say 91% , if you use total casualties as the denominator. You could even prefer it. But “nonsense” is uncharitable.

nelox 1y ago
Even worst case sources not claiming anywhere near 10:1. As of early–mid August 2025, the Gaza Ministry of Health reports around 61,600 total deaths in Gaza since the war began, without distinguishing between civilians and militants. The Israeli military’s most recent on-record statement (January 2025) claims it has killed about 20,000 Hamas operatives. Subtracting that claim from the total suggests roughly 41,600 civilians have died, an estimated civilian-to-militant ratio of about 2 to 1, though if lower militant-death estimates from independent analysts (10,000–15,000) are used, the ratio could be closer to 3–4 to 1. Both sides’ figures are contested, and humanitarian agencies such as the UN caution that these numbers are unverified and incomplete due to the difficulty of collecting accurate data in the conflict. Sources: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/8/7/israel-hamas-war-live-news https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/8/7/israel-hama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/gaza-war-israel-hamas-palestinian-deaths/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/gaza-war-isr... https://ochaopt.org/updates/humanitarian-snapshot-casualties-gaza-strip-west-bank-7-january-2025 https://ochaopt.org/updates/humanitarian-snapshot-casualties...
- nelox 1y ago
  Anything Hamas says must be judged against the track record of its past falsehoods and distortions, this is their norm, not the exception. If someone still takes their words at face value, no fact or evidence will change how they see them. Before October 2023, several high-profile Hamas claims were later undermined by evidence: after denying involvement in the June 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri publicly acknowledged the group’s role; while Hamas framed the 2018 “Great March of Return” as largely civilian, its own official Salah al-Bardawil said 50 of the 62 people killed on May 14, 2018 were Hamas members; despite Hamas’s insistence that it did not use civilian sites, the U.N. agency UNRWA repeatedly found rockets stored in its Gaza schools in 2014; and although Hamas dismissed allegations of abuses against Palestinian rivals, Amnesty International documented a 2014 campaign of abductions, torture and summary executions in Gaza. Sources: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-hamas-official-admits-organisation-was-behind-kidnapping-of-teenagers-9682299.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelg... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-politburo-member-bardawil-fifty-martyrs-were-hamas-members https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-politburo-member-bardawil-fif... https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestin...

cookiengineer 1y ago

If the BBC didn't ban the documentary, why do you think there are journalists now protesting in front of the building? What is the reason for those ongoing protests if that didn't happen? Maybe read some world news outside Fox News once in a while, man. The name of the documentary (obfuscated to avoid auto flags, because this is HN after all): Gaza: D0ctors under attack (2025). I agree that the 1000% were hyperbole on my part, but you have to admit that destroying clearly labelled-on-the-outside buildings that are hospitals and houses of international organizations like doctors without borders were all destroyed. Not once, but actually more than 13 hospitals alone (just in case you play the it was a mistake part). People literally died while the IDF/IOF was "checking" their passports, refusing critical treatment, with people literally bleeding out outside the hospital because they were not allowed to enter. Nurses and hospital doctors were stripped naked and beaten to death, in mass interrogation camps. This is not some misidentification issue. This is post-Desert Storm trying to manufacture evidence, at all cost. These types of actions are absolutely disproportionate. (Downvote me all you want, I can take it)

nelox 1y ago
I’m not downvoting you, that would be someone else. Protests outside a broadcaster do not prove that a ban occurred. People protest over editorial decisions, framing, or lack of coverage without there being an actual prohibition. Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. The rest of the comment mixes admitted hyperbole with serious accusations that are either unverified or based on partisan sources. The destruction of “clearly labelled” hospitals and aid facilities has been reported, but such claims require independent investigation to determine context — including whether the sites were being used for military purposes, which changes their legal status under the laws of armed conflict. The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. Allegations of executions, beatings, or denial of treatment are grave, but they must be supported by verifiable evidence from credible investigators, not presented as conclusive fact. Calling such events “not misidentification” assumes intent without proof. Assertions about “manufacturing evidence” are also speculation unless backed by concrete documentation. Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness.