> I'll just quote Wikipedia for you: And? What do these figures tell you? You are accepting a very lazy explanation for the disparity in the number of casualti

> I'll just quote Wikipedia for you: And? What do these figures tell you? You are accepting a very lazy explanation for the disparity in the number of casualties and calling a day. I will give you an example where with the same logic you will arrive to an unconventional conclusion. There was order of magnitudes more German civilians killed by the US forces during WW2 than the other way around. Does it mean that Nazi Germany are the good guys here? Probably no. One alternative explanation why there was more Palestinians killed than Israelis is because: 1. Israelis have shelters, so they have places to hide from rockets 2. Israelis have Iron Dome and alert systems to alert civilians of incoming rockets Palestinians did not have these things. Moreover, Gaza's government used underground facilities only for military purposes and did not allow civilians to hide there for the duration of hostilities. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that there will be more causalities on the side that has fewer defenses. But, you can stick to your intellectually lazy argument that paints a very specific picture. > Nope, that's the wrong prejudice for my intersectional group, but it certainly reveals some of your own biases. You have no idea what my biases are. You were the one who went with personal insinuations, not me. I just showed you that this type of discourse is not very productive as it lead nowhere. So, what did your pager anxiety outburst tell us about your biases?