CV's Copy - ISRAEL-HAMAS

[aygart]

I am pointing out all the different metrics. You want goal posts? 

Rough numbers.
Population of Iraq during war 30mm
Civilians killed 200k

Population of Gaza during the war 2mm
Civilians killed ??

Which will have a lower ratio?

Why is total population relevant?

[CountValentine]

Why is total population relevant?

If the population of Gaza was 4mm instead of 2mm would you expect more or less civilians being killed?
Maybe you feel it would be the same?

[jj1000]

If the population of Gaza was 4mm instead of 2mm would you expect more or less civilians being killed?
Maybe you feel it would be the same?

If the area of Gaza was 169,000 sq mi I'd expect it to be less.

[CountValentine]

If the area of Gaza was 169,000 sq mi I'd expect it to be less.

So would I now answer my question.

[Ver hut gazugt]

They are getting pounded every day by remaining silent and giving the impression they are hiding something.

that is your way of seeing it and perhaps you are right but they see it otherwise.

[aygart]

If the population of Gaza was 4mm instead of 2mm would you expect more or less civilians being killed?
Maybe you feel it would be the same?

But why would it be in proportion?

[CountValentine]

But why would it be in proportion?

You keep asking questions without answering any.

[CountValentine]

that is your way of seeing it and perhaps you are right but they see it otherwise.

Kristi Noem sees shooting a puppy in the face differently also. 

[aygart]

You keep asking questions without answering any.

Why should we go into a discussion about something irrelevant

[Just A Jew]

Why should we go into a discussion about something irrelevant

Took you 40k posts to come to this conclusion??

[CountValentine]

Why should we go into a discussion about something irrelevant

Another question? 
You feel it is irrelevant, I don't.
The #1 metric for when some says we kill less civilians compared to x than other wars is the number of civilians killed.
From there you have to factor in all the variables.
One important variable is the size of the population.
Another is population density.
Another is the number of fighters.
The list goes on and on.
If you won't answer simple questions because it doesn't fit your narrative then that shows me your narrative is flawed.

[Just A Jew]

If the population of Gaza was 4mm instead of 2mm would you expect more or less civilians being killed?
Maybe you feel it would be the same?

Given no other information, such as population density, location of enemy combatants or installations in relation to urban areas or population density, ratio of combatants to civilians, severutybof fighting, and others, I'd expect countries with greater civilians populations to have higher civilian casualties.

That said, we both know that means nothing without the other variables. Most countries do not have military installations in or near major urban areas. They also don't embed fighters within the civilian population, and even when fighting in urban environments, usually avoid sensitive civilian areas such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship, where there will be higher concentrations of civilians seeking shelter. It goes without saying that they definitely don't install most of their military infrastructure underneath their most populated cities.

If one can agree to these basic assumptions, then one can agree that any number of civilian casualty ratios which is anywhere close to "normal" combat circumstances is a a huge deal. One would assume that the above circumstances would present civilian death ratios which should dwarf historical combat civilian death ratios.

[aygart]

Another question? 
You feel it is irrelevant, I don't.
The #1 metric for when some says we kill less civilians compared to x than other wars is the number of civilians killed.
From there you have to factor in all the variables.
One important variable is the size of the population.
Another is population density.
Another is the number of fighters.
The list goes on and on.
If you won't answer simple questions because it doesn't fit your narrative then that shows me your narrative is flawed.

I didn't say it is irrelevant I just want to establish why it would be. The population of Russia is not at all relevant to whether or not Ukraine is adequately protecting civilians because the vast majority are nowhere near the war zone.

[Ver hut gazugt]

Another question? 
You feel it is irrelevant, I don't.
The #1 metric for when some says we kill less civilians compared to x than other wars is the number of civilians killed.
From there you have to factor in all the variables.
One important variable is the size of the population.
Another is population density.
Another is the number of fighters.
The list goes on and on.
If you won't answer simple questions because it doesn't fit your narrative then that shows me your narrative is flawed.

it’s not relevant because no one believes it can be more then the inflated hamas numbers. So who cares what number Israel has ?

[CountValentine]

Given no other information, such as population density, location of enemy combatants or installations in relation to urban areas or population density, ratio of combatants to civilians, severutybof fighting, and others, I'd expect countries with greater civilians populations to have higher civilian casualties.

It boggles the mind why all would not answer this. You are the first to answer.

That said, we both know that means nothing without the other variables. Most countries do not have military installations in or near major urban areas. They also don't embed fighters within the civilian population, and even when fighting in urban environments, usually avoid sensitive civilian areas such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship, where there will be higher concentrations of civilians seeking shelter. It goes without saying that they definitely don't install most of their military infrastructure underneath their most populated cities.

I agree.

[aygart]

it’s not relevant because no one believes it can be more then the inflated hamas numbers. So who cares what number Israel has ?

It can show that the number of combatants presented makes no sense.

[CountValentine]

it’s not relevant because no one believes it can be more then the inflated hamas numbers. So who cares what number Israel has ?

Every news cast I have seen. This is one of the things that has an effect on the support for Israel.
If Israel came out and said 5k civilians have been killed. The US would have to dispute those numbers or acknowledge Israel is doing an amazing job in protecting civilians compared to any other war.

[aygart]

Every news cast I have seen. This is one of the things that has an effect on the support for Israel.
If Israel came out and said 5k civilians have been killed. The US would have to dispute those numbers or acknowledge Israel is doing an amazing job in protecting civilians compared to any other war.

Agree. They need to offer their alternative narrative or everyone will default to the opposing one.

[gozalim]

"you have the right to remain silent. Everything you say (goes on record) can and will be used against you"

[zh cohen]

I am pointing out all the different metrics.

That is exactly my point. In the past I (and others) have argued that "goalposts" is not an objective way of measuring results, because it doesn't account for all relevant factors and leaves room for people to choose a goalpost that fits their biases.

Now you are conceeding that point.

I think that the next step is to discuss what metrics are appropriate to this situation, with each person explaining why they think their way of measuring makes the most sense, and then we can have a meaningful conversation about whether Israel is doing enough.