3 ms·

> 80% of ORB's estimated deaths came from four central governorates (completely excluding 3 altogether), and the mortality responses in those areas had major in

> 80% of ORB's estimated deaths came from four central governorates (completely excluding 3 altogether), and the mortality responses in those areas had major internal inconsistencies. The conclusion of peer-reviewed critique is that the ORB mortality data were not credible. Yeah, I'm not sure how credible it is, I only pointed that one out since you were comparing generally upper range estimates with other upper range estimates. > I can't see how you could possibly get anywhere near any meaningful figure for 'combatant to civilian death ratios' in Iraq. I mean, it's the figure that I think matters the most. I agree it's probably also one of the most difficult figures to accurately determine. > Add to that the issue that, in Gaza, Israel has completely sealed off the area from international observers, so credible data on "combatant to civilian death ratios" just won't exist. International observers can't operate in Gaza without what is effectively the consent of Hamas. Hamas deliberately doesn't properly differentiate civilian deaths from combatant deaths so it seems not particularly likely that international observers could get accurate data on combatant to civilian death ratios if they are being watched by Hamas. > All I can say is that based on the data, the claim made is absolutely not supported by the evidence. [Edit - even if the million figure were credible, it's still at least double, and actually indicating the opposite of what was claimed] Overall deaths is not really the figure I would focus on regardless.

watutalkinbout 1mo ago
I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of. In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza. If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes. The UN Human Rights Office described the restriction as lasting more than 18 months by June 2025, with only a few IDF-controlled visits. The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters. This isn't exactly a hall of fame...
- jameshilliard 1mo ago
  > I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of. I guess my point was more just that one should be careful with these sort of comparisons, because even if you have accurate data you can still be simply measuring the wrong thing entirely. Raw death counts can be useful as part of the analysis, but they also don't tell the entire story. > In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza. It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas. > If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes. Outcomes that Israel would probably get blamed for even if the fault was entirely due to Hamas. It's a no-win scenario. Keep in mind I'm not neccesarially saying Israel's making the best decisions here, I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth. > The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters. What countries allow reporters unimpeded/uncontrolled access to war zones? I don't think Ukraine does and I don't think any of the gulf coast countries attacked by Iran were allowing free reporting either. I would think it's not very many as the security reasons alone are highly problematic.
  - watutalkinbout 1mo ago
    Mate - I'm not the one making false claims. I'm simply challenging obvious bullshit with back of the fag packet numbers. Please note, you have said nothing about the bullshit claim, you instead are going after me challenging the bullshit by using actual data. You can argue about how it's used, but it's absolutely sufficient to demonstrate the claim is nonsense. If you want to evidence the unsupported (out of thin air) claim, please by all means go ahead. I encourage people to connect their claims to reality. >It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas. Interestingly, that's another claim for which you have provided no evidence. >What countries asks reporters unimpeded/ uncontrolled access to war zones? Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list. >I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth. Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them. I'm starting to find it difficult to take things you say in good faith. But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?

watutalkinbout 1mo ago

I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of. In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza. If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes. The UN Human Rights Office described the restriction as lasting more than 18 months by June 2025, with only a few IDF-controlled visits. The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters. This isn't exactly a hall of fame...

jameshilliard 1mo ago
> I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of. I guess my point was more just that one should be careful with these sort of comparisons, because even if you have accurate data you can still be simply measuring the wrong thing entirely. Raw death counts can be useful as part of the analysis, but they also don't tell the entire story. > In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza. It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas. > If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes. Outcomes that Israel would probably get blamed for even if the fault was entirely due to Hamas. It's a no-win scenario. Keep in mind I'm not neccesarially saying Israel's making the best decisions here, I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth. > The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters. What countries allow reporters unimpeded/uncontrolled access to war zones? I don't think Ukraine does and I don't think any of the gulf coast countries attacked by Iran were allowing free reporting either. I would think it's not very many as the security reasons alone are highly problematic.
- watutalkinbout 1mo ago
  Mate - I'm not the one making false claims. I'm simply challenging obvious bullshit with back of the fag packet numbers. Please note, you have said nothing about the bullshit claim, you instead are going after me challenging the bullshit by using actual data. You can argue about how it's used, but it's absolutely sufficient to demonstrate the claim is nonsense. If you want to evidence the unsupported (out of thin air) claim, please by all means go ahead. I encourage people to connect their claims to reality. >It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas. Interestingly, that's another claim for which you have provided no evidence. >What countries asks reporters unimpeded/ uncontrolled access to war zones? Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list. >I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth. Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them. I'm starting to find it difficult to take things you say in good faith. But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?