EPTThere will be, of course, both civilians and fighters that are not counted or registered correctly, but even if the actual death rate were something like 70% civilians, this would be significantly worse compared to many other conflicts.
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 471
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Legan
Finland419 Posts
There will be, of course, both civilians and fighters that are not counted or registered correctly, but even if the actual death rate were something like 70% civilians, this would be significantly worse compared to many other conflicts. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4187 Posts
On August 22 2025 16:37 Legan wrote: Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war There will be, of course, both civilians and fighters that are not counted or registered correctly, but even if the actual death rate were something like 70% civilians, this would be significantly worse compared to many other conflicts. I tend to take The Guardian articles with a huge grain of salt. Their left-wing bias concerns me a little less, but they've also published misinformation, and in combination that's not exactly good for their reputation. But I agree that even 70% civilians would be far too much. The human shield argument has long lost its effect on me. Completely. That's not because I condone the tactic of human shields, it's because Israel has been caught lying far too many times about what does or doesn't constitute a valid target. | ||
|
T1Tony
15 Posts
On August 22 2025 17:11 Magic Powers wrote: I tend to take The Guardian articles with a huge grain of salt. Their left-wing bias concerns me a little less, but they've also published misinformation, and in combination that's not exactly good for their reputation. But I agree that even 70% civilians would be far too much. The human shield argument has long lost its effect on me. Completely. That's not because I condone the tactic of human shields, it's because Israel has been caught lying far too many times about what does or doesn't constitute a valid target. The credibility problem works both ways. Human rights groups like Amnesty or HRW often publish different numbers than governments, and the UN sometimes takes weeks to verify. When Israel cites human shields to justify very high civilian casualties, but independent sources find weak evidence, the argument collapses. It's not that people deny the tactic exists, it's that they've stopped trusting it as a blanket excuse | ||
| ||
