16 ms·
He is right, the logical leap would be hilarious if not a symbol for today's journalistic standards. Let's say the IDF has positively confirmed 17% combatants.
by breppp 10mo ago
He is right, the logical leap would be hilarious if not a symbol for today's journalistic standards.
Let's say the IDF has positively confirmed 17% combatants. The negation of that set is not "Non combatants" but "Not positively identified by the IDF as combatants". which means that some may still be combatants, and most probably some are as the standard here is to confirm names, something hard to do when someone is under the rubble. Therefore the title here which says 83% civilians according to IDF data is simply false.
That's forgetting the other issues with this article (single IDF unit not tasked with research, multiple databases with different numbers, using Hams death data, forgetting about non-Hamas non-PIJ groups, low reputable source, etc) but I am sure that if you can see this misstep you can understand the general value of what you read there
- lr0 10mo agoI'm not sure if you understand how casualty classification works. “not positively identified as combatant” is not logically equivalent to “proven civilian.” No one claims it is. What it does mean is that the IDF has no evidence those people were combatants. And in law, statistics, and every serious conflict dataset, you don’t get to assign lethal status based on vibes. Also calling Aman “a single unit not tasked with research” is false. It’s Military Intelligence, and Israeli sources say this database is the only one they can stand behind. If your position requires assuming thousands of unidentified dead people were combatants without evidence, then your position is not analytical rather ideological.