|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
You get competing numbers for Mariupol, I have to guess that they made their claim based on a different estimate. And Aleppo is a much different timeframe (ah sry yes you added that I didn't see the edit).
Conservative estimates based on mass graves put the death toll at 10-20k. Russia has been blocking any independent investigations and actively destroying evidence so we'll never know. It also depends on which time frame you use and whether you take into account that a certain portion of the population fled before the siege (around 100k?).
You also have to keep in mind that, while it can be argued that Israel is being reckless, Hamas is actively using the population as a human shield in a number of different ways.
=> No I don't have to keep that in mind.
Sure, feel free to ignore the context. ;-)
|
On April 06 2024 21:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2024 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not comfortable with reading so far into this, it's mostly an argument around numbers so that's where the focus should be in my opinion. I don't have any political positions that are based around which of Putin or Netanyahu is a worst fascist, it doesn't matter a whole lot in my world, but I like to say things that are true as opposed to things that are not true and I would have said that Gaza's destruction was not comparable to other recent conflicts. If that's not the case then that's worth correcting. *urban* conflicts. Its worth mentioning how we are restricting the argument here. Elroi sarcastically saying 'genocidal campaign' is like he wants us to compare Gaza, where the entire population is contained within an urban environment, to Aleppo (rather than the whole of Syria), where genocide isn't really a thing because most of the population of Syria lives in rural areas. Its like we are localizing the discussion to urban areas only and then making generalizations about entire ethnic populations that are inappropriate when you do that, except in the case of Gaza. There's no logical way to square that circle, you have to accept that the population of Gaza being so squeezed in to such a small urban area (Israel's choice btw) is a factor and should be a factor in how Israel prosecutes their slaughter.
I tend to side with you, but the discussion is at least worth having. Mariupol is a good counterexample if you trust the 25000 death estimate. HRW has it at around 8000 deaths in which case it wouldn't play, but I don't really have a clue how many people died in Mariupol.
And yes I don't doubt that they have ulterior motives for having the conversation. That specific numerical claim doesn't change what is and isn't genocide, nor does it change how much of a rube you have to be to still be talking about human shields.
|
On April 06 2024 21:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2024 21:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2024 21:40 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not comfortable with reading so far into this, it's mostly an argument around numbers so that's where the focus should be in my opinion. I don't have any political positions that are based around which of Putin or Netanyahu is a worst fascist, it doesn't matter a whole lot in my world, but I like to say things that are true as opposed to things that are not true and I would have said that Gaza's destruction was not comparable to other recent conflicts. If that's not the case then that's worth correcting. *urban* conflicts. Its worth mentioning how we are restricting the argument here. Elroi sarcastically saying 'genocidal campaign' is like he wants us to compare Gaza, where the entire population is contained within an urban environment, to Aleppo (rather than the whole of Syria), where genocide isn't really a thing because most of the population of Syria lives in rural areas. Its like we are localizing the discussion to urban areas only and then making generalizations about entire ethnic populations that are inappropriate when you do that, except in the case of Gaza. There's no logical way to square that circle, you have to accept that the population of Gaza being so squeezed in to such a small urban area (Israel's choice btw) is a factor and should be a factor in how Israel prosecutes their slaughter. I tend to side with you, but the discussion is at least worth having. Mariupol is a good counterexample if you trust the 25000 death estimate. HRW has it at around 8000 deaths in which case it wouldn't play, but I don't really have a clue how many people died in Mariupol. And yes I don't doubt that they have ulterior motives for having the conversation. That specific numerical claim doesn't change what is and isn't genocide, nor does it change how much of a rube you have to be to still be talking about human shields.
I think the conversation will be useful once the numbers have become a bit more clear.
Much of the damage done here is in plunging the population into famine, and those numbers have barely started coming through yet. On top of that there's the already mentioned unknown deaths, which I would suspect is not insignificant right now.
|
On April 06 2024 15:21 Elroi wrote:
Am I the only one who think there has been remarkably few civilian deaths in this war given that it is a war in an urban area? Are there examples of prolonged urban warfare with less civilian casualties than in this “genocidal campaign”?
Siege of Grozny was a 4-month long urban warfare campaign that involved heavy artillery fire and airstrikes, and was widely condemned for recklessly endangering civilians. Total civilian casualties in the siege of Grozny were likely around 3000-5000, with absolutely highest estimates going up to 8000.
No, there aren't 'remarkably few' civilian deaths in Gaza.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26058 Posts
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges
|
On April 06 2024 22:31 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2024 15:21 Elroi wrote:
Am I the only one who think there has been remarkably few civilian deaths in this war given that it is a war in an urban area? Are there examples of prolonged urban warfare with less civilian casualties than in this “genocidal campaign”? Siege of Grozny was a 4-month long urban warfare campaign that involved heavy artillery fire and airstrikes, and was widely condemned for recklessly endangering civilians. Total civilian casualties in the siege of Grozny were likely around 3000-5000, with absolutely highest estimates going up to 8000. No, there aren't 'remarkably few' civilian deaths in Gaza.
You're proving my point. Grozny is a comparable conflict in terms of time and kind of warfare. The siege of Grozny resulted in 15% of the population being killed compared to 1,5% of the population in Gaza.
|
On April 06 2024 22:31 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2024 15:21 Elroi wrote:
Am I the only one who think there has been remarkably few civilian deaths in this war given that it is a war in an urban area? Are there examples of prolonged urban warfare with less civilian casualties than in this “genocidal campaign”? Siege of Grozny was a 4-month long urban warfare campaign that involved heavy artillery fire and airstrikes, and was widely condemned for recklessly endangering civilians. Total civilian casualties in the siege of Grozny were likely around 3000-5000, with absolutely highest estimates going up to 8000. No, there aren't 'remarkably few' civilian deaths in Gaza.
Considering that in the First Chechen War Russia killed estimated 10% of Chechnya's population? Are you for real?
|
|
|
|
|
On April 06 2024 22:59 WombaT wrote:
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges
Right. Another apples to oranges comparison is cherry picking the white hot epicenters of conflict to compare the whole of Gaza to. Sure, if you arbitrarily decide that Gaza should be compared to a 1 mile radius around ground zero of the A-bomb in Hiroshima then obviously Hiroshima wins. Comparing the entire land mass of one people's territory to <1% the land mass of another people's territory doesn't seem like a fair comparison.
|
On April 07 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2024 22:59 WombaT wrote:
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges Right. Another apples to oranges comparison is cherry picking the white hot epicenters of conflict to compare the whole of Gaza to. Sure, if you arbitrarily decide that Gaza should be compared to a 1 mile radius around ground zero of the A-bomb in Hiroshima then obviously Hiroshima wins. Comparing the entire land mass of one people's territory to <1% the land mass of another people's territory doesn't seem like a fair comparison.
But the whole of Gaza is a white hot epicenter - what else should you compare it to? If you accept that Israel has the right to wage war against Hamas, this is the kind of casualties you would realistically expect. There simply are not any comparable examples of urban warfare with less casualties.
Obviously, you could say that it is not worth it and that Hamas should be left alone. But in that case, wouldn't the battle of Berlin would also be completely unacceptable a price to pay for getting rid of the Nazis since you had this amount of civilians killed every day for weeks?
|
On April 07 2024 08:33 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2024 22:59 WombaT wrote:
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges Right. Another apples to oranges comparison is cherry picking the white hot epicenters of conflict to compare the whole of Gaza to. Sure, if you arbitrarily decide that Gaza should be compared to a 1 mile radius around ground zero of the A-bomb in Hiroshima then obviously Hiroshima wins. Comparing the entire land mass of one people's territory to <1% the land mass of another people's territory doesn't seem like a fair comparison. But the whole of Gaza is a white hot epicenter - what else should you compare it to? If you accept that Israel has the right to wage war against Hamas, this is the kind of casualties you would realistically expect. There simply are not any comparable examples of urban warfare with less casualties. Obviously, you could say that it is not worth it and that Hamas should be left alone. But in that case, wouldn't the battle of Berlin would also be completely unacceptable a price to pay for getting rid of the Nazis since you had this amount of civilians killed every day for weeks?
Kind of wanted Salazarz to take this one but where did you get that 15% from Grozny, 8000 is not 15% of Grozny so clearly you have different numbers
|
According to wikipedia Grozny had 40 000 inhabitants when the siege happened.
|
On April 07 2024 08:45 Elroi wrote:
According to wikipedia Grozny had 40 000 inhabitants when the siege happened.
I had like 200000 or 300000. So a bunch of them left before the siege? If that's included then surely the fact that a bunch of Gazans had moved south when Gaza was bombed is relevant there too, but you didn't remove them.
|
On April 07 2024 08:33 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2024 22:59 WombaT wrote:
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges Right. Another apples to oranges comparison is cherry picking the white hot epicenters of conflict to compare the whole of Gaza to. Sure, if you arbitrarily decide that Gaza should be compared to a 1 mile radius around ground zero of the A-bomb in Hiroshima then obviously Hiroshima wins. Comparing the entire land mass of one people's territory to <1% the land mass of another people's territory doesn't seem like a fair comparison. But the whole of Gaza is a white hot epicenter - what else should you compare it to? If you accept that Israel has the right to wage war against Hamas, this is the kind of casualties you would realistically expect. There simply are not any comparable examples of urban warfare with less casualties. Obviously, you could say that it is not worth it and that Hamas should be left alone. But in that case, wouldn't the battle of Berlin would also be completely unacceptable a price to pay for getting rid of the Nazis since you had this amount of civilians killed every day for weeks?
That’s what makes this war exceptionally devastating for the civilians. They are all affected. Something like 70-90% of them are homeless and hungry. You’re not even arguing that the average Gazan civilian is having a better go of it then than the average German civilian. You’re arguing that the average Gazan is having a better go of it than the most unfortunately located German civilians. It’s not the brag you think it is.
|
Monitoring group Action on Armed Violence said that each Israeli airstrike caused an average of 10.1 civilian deaths and that the figure suggested a notable change in Israel's targeting approach. The previous Israeli campaigns in Gaza produced the averages of 1.3–1.7, while in the sieges of Mosul, Aleppo the ratio exceeded 20 civilian casualties per airstrike.
Israeli intelligence officers said the Israeli military allowed a large number of civilians deaths as collateral damage, particularly in the early part of the conflict. The rate of killing exceeds that of US-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, which were widely criticized by rights groups. The first month of the war has been the deadliest conflict for children this century.
Multiple generations of families have been killed in Israeli attacks. As of 31 October, Amnesty International has documented five cases of entire families being killed in Israeli airstrikes. The Associated Press reported that the killing of entire families in single airstrikes by Israel has "raised troubling questions about Israeli military tactics". As of 15 October 47 families had been completely wiped away from the population registry, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
According to the World Food Program, as of 9 December more than half of the population of Gaza was "starving"; more than nine in ten were not eating everyday and 48% suffering from "extreme hunger".
This is from Wikipedia, you can go check it out for linked sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war
Now that humanitarian aid has been hampered I suspect that the death toll among civilian population might skyrocket.
|
On April 07 2024 08:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2024 08:45 Elroi wrote:
According to wikipedia Grozny had 40 000 inhabitants when the siege happened. I had like 200000 or 300000. So a bunch of them left before the siege? If that's included then surely the fact that a bunch of Gazans had moved south when Gaza was bombed is relevant there too, but you didn't remove them.
I guess you could compare the conflict in Gaza with the conflict in the entirety of Chechnya but that would also give you between 3 and 10 times as many civilians killed. But the comparison is unfair since Chechnya is not close to being as densely populated as Gaza and the population wasn’t systematically used as human shields.
|
On April 07 2024 08:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2024 08:33 Elroi wrote:On April 07 2024 07:50 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2024 22:59 WombaT wrote:
Considering both Ukraine and Syria have seen relatively equivalent forces going toe to toe in a relatively conventional war, and the Gazan conflict is absolutely not such an instance, comparisons strike me as very apples and oranges Right. Another apples to oranges comparison is cherry picking the white hot epicenters of conflict to compare the whole of Gaza to. Sure, if you arbitrarily decide that Gaza should be compared to a 1 mile radius around ground zero of the A-bomb in Hiroshima then obviously Hiroshima wins. Comparing the entire land mass of one people's territory to <1% the land mass of another people's territory doesn't seem like a fair comparison. But the whole of Gaza is a white hot epicenter - what else should you compare it to? If you accept that Israel has the right to wage war against Hamas, this is the kind of casualties you would realistically expect. There simply are not any comparable examples of urban warfare with less casualties. Obviously, you could say that it is not worth it and that Hamas should be left alone. But in that case, wouldn't the battle of Berlin would also be completely unacceptable a price to pay for getting rid of the Nazis since you had this amount of civilians killed every day for weeks? Kind of wanted Salazarz to take this one but where did you get that 15% from Grozny, 8000 is not 15% of Grozny so clearly you have different numbers
To avoid such problem, why not compare total death toll vs. total population? Chechnya was much worse.
|
On April 07 2024 15:37 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2024 08:48 Nebuchad wrote:On April 07 2024 08:45 Elroi wrote:
According to wikipedia Grozny had 40 000 inhabitants when the siege happened. I had like 200000 or 300000. So a bunch of them left before the siege? If that's included then surely the fact that a bunch of Gazans had moved south when Gaza was bombed is relevant there too, but you didn't remove them. I guess you could compare the conflict in Gaza with the conflict in the entirety of Chechnya but that would also give you between 3 and 10 times as many civilians killed. But the comparison is unfair since Chechnya is not close to being as densely populated as Gaza and the population wasn’t systematically used as human shields.
Population of Grozny in 1989: 400k, in 2002 it was at it's nadir of 210k and now it's back up to 330k. So when the Battle of Grozny happened in 1994, I don't see any reason to believe the population of Grozny was 40k.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny
Civilian deaths in the battle of Grozny were over 27k, so also higher than the 8k people are mentioning according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–1995). According to that same, well-sourced Wikipedia page, that was roughly 6% of the population.
Now I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Gaza, but if we're doing the whole "omg, this conflict is worse than anything else in history!" Let's at least use the right numbers? And it's not like looking on Wikipedia was a particularly difficult thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
