Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
If only the US bought gaza an iron dome as well
Why?
Israel without support from USA puts them in a position where they could be completely destroyed. How does this lead them to committing less murder?
Victor:
IDF claims less than 200 soldiers dead in their campaign. There's little to suggest this is false.
Victor:
IDF claims less than 200 soldiers dead in their campaign. There's little to suggest this is false.
I know you dont post a lot in this thread, but from his work in the Ukraine thread I am sure you already realize the Venn diagram between reality and Victor's truth has very little overlap, if any.
Why?
Israel without support from USA puts them in a position where they could be completely destroyed. How does this lead them to committing less murder?
Victor:
IDF claims less than 200 soldiers dead in their campaign. There's little to suggest this is false.
Because it’s way harder to shoot someone than it is to drop a bomb on them or Lob a mortar or a send a rocket onto their position.
Most Bullets have to have line of sight with the target in order to kill. Explosives need no such thing
So it’s more difficult AND your soldiers are put at a much higher risk of death.
Why?
Israel without support from USA puts them in a position where they could be completely destroyed. How does this lead them to committing less murder?
Victor:
IDF claims less than 200 soldiers dead in their campaign. There's little to suggest this is false.
theres a lot to suggest this is false. read Israeli media.
I know you dont post a lot in this thread, but from his work in the Ukraine thread I am sure you already realize the Venn diagram between reality and Victor's truth has very little overlap, if any.
get owned lib
So you agree that this would result in Israel suffering increased casualties because they would send a massive amount of troops and tanks into Gaza. I'm not asking about the effectiveness of bullets vs bombs, I'm asking about the number of civilian casualties in this scenario. They would be astronomically high.
Looks like a difference between a casualty and being wounded. Hard to tell from that article. Either way this is dealing with wounded, which is not the same as dead. Hiding a death is pretty difficult in Israel due to their burial customs.
Death rates are going to be a proportion of casualty rates. And it's now where close to 185 dead if the Haaretz Israeli media article is correct.
Regardless, you said there was no reason to question some crap in that nbc article. I gave you a good reason.
Death rates are going to be a proportion of casualty rates. And it's now where close to 185 dead if the Haaretz Israeli media article is correct.
What?
Regardless, you said there was no reason to question some crap in that nbc article. I gave you a good reason.
No. Not really. Refer to my last post.
get owned lib
I don't subscribe to Haaretz. But I can gather from context you are "owning" me by taking an estimate of an estimate, without even providing what your estimate is.
Funny, I don't feel very owned.
if we know there are a certain number of casualties in a war, then the number of deaths will be a fraction of that. how is that hard to understand?
if 184 people were dead, a 10% rate would be 1800 casualties. you arent going to make me teach you the fundamentals of math now right? I readily admit I will not be able to derive the truisms of fractions for you.
ofc 9 or 10 to 1 is not really reasonable. nor is 1 or 2 to 1. iirc, modern conflicts around 5:1.
so go back and read that Haaretz article and get out your calculator.
No. Not really. Refer to my last post.
an Israeli media source does extensive research and dude is like. nope, that means nothing to me. the sycophancy is grotesque.
I don't subscribe to Haaretz. But I can gather from context you are "owning" me by taking an estimate of an estimate, without even providing what your estimate is.
Funny, I don't feel very owned.
scroll up.
ofc you dont. one of the first things that libs shed is their sense of shame. if you had any, you wouldnt be a lib.
actually dont scroll up. Ill repost the exact link that was like 5 lines above you that you pretended not to see bc you know that my cites are impeccable and your only recourse, just like BGP's, is to go all Westworld on it.
if we know there are a certain number of casualties in a war, then the number of deaths will be a fraction of that. how is that hard to understand?
if 184 people were dead, a 10% rate would be 1800 casualties. you arent going to make me teach you the fundamentals of math now right? I readily admit I will not be able to derive the truisms of fractions for you.
ofc 9 or 10 to 1 is not really reasonable. nor is 1 or 2 to 1. iirc, modern conf
I see, thanks for clarifying.
Let's take a look at an extreme example: the Ukrainian operation in Krynky across the Dnipro. In order to evacuate the wounded they need to cross the river, which is extremely dangerous, and then need to be driven to a hospital which is pretty far away. The amount of wounded able to make this evacuation safely goes down significantly compared to the rest of the front, and the evacuations able to be made in Ukraine as a whole are going to be significantly lower than the injured soldiers that are able to make it to hospitals to be treated in Israel where they have far greater control of evacuation routes and the routes are much quicker.
Does the fact that fewer soldiers make it from Krynky to the hospitals to get their wounds treated and be classified as wounded mean that there are fewer or greater deaths on that front?
I didn't read the article, so I dont know what their estimate for "casualties" is, or how they came by it. But for modern countries 10:1 is the number I have seen floated around, and it could actually be much higher in this case given Hamas doesn't really have any capacity to "finish off" wounded soldiers. They can pretty much always be immediately evacuated for medical care.
I know you want it to be one way, but sorry it is most likely the other way. Which is actually a good thing for the world. The last thing the world needs is 7th century genocidal maniacs winning anything. That would be a tragedy for everyone.
They have no estimate for "casualties" they are comparing it to anyone sent to a hospital. Being sent to a hospital does not necessarily constitute being "wounded" to the military.
The Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva reported admitting 1,000 soldiers; Sheba Medical Center, 500; Assuta Medical Center in Ashdod, 178; Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv, 148; Rambam Health Care Campus, 181; Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem, 209; Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, 139; and Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva, 287.
According to current reports by the IDF, 255 soldiers have been severely wounded, 446 moderately wounded, and 892 lightly wounded. The army told Haaretz two weeks ago that 1,000 soldiers were wounded after initially declining to disclose any information on the matter.
I see, thanks for clarifying.
Let's take a look at an extreme example: the Ukrainian operation in Krynky across the Dnipro. In order to evacuate the wounded they need to cross the river, which is extremely dangerous, and then need to be driven to a hospital which is pretty far away. The amount of wounded able to make this evacuation safely goes down significantly compared to the rest of the front, and the evacuations able to be made in Ukrai
it wont have much impact on the overall casualty to death ratio. you understand the concept of cherry-picking right?
So yeah, given the accepted 10:1 ratio, 185 Israeli soldier deaths (or whatever the exact number is, I am not sure) is on the high side, but well within expectations if those Haaretz numbers are close to correct.
I didn't read the article, so I dont know what their estimate for "casualties" is, or how they came by it. But for modern countries 10:1 is the number I have seen floated around, and it could actually be much higher in this case given Hamas doesn't really have any capacity to "finish off" wounded soldiers. They can pretty much always be immediately evacuated for medical care.
I know you want it to be one way, but sorry it is most likely
yes I am seeing that 10:1 is indeed what the USA reports.
this shows that I am indeed a victim of USA propaganda once again bc I remember reading about how the dumb Russians were at like 3 or 5 to 1 during this Ukrainian war.
regardless, 10:1 would still put the numbers much higher than 184.
it wont have much impact on the overall casualty to death ratio. you understand the concept of cherry-picking right?
Your refusal to answer suggests that you are able to see the flaw in your logic. This is not cherry picking, it an illustration of ignoring the nuance of a specific situation and relying on overgeneralization in an attempt to spread a false narrative. You understand the concept of overgeneralization right?
Israel's easy access to, and ability to, get soldiers to hospitals quicker rather than slower is not evidence that they are suffering more dead; it's evidence of the exact opposite.
yes I am seeing that 10:1 is indeed what the USA reports.
this shows that I am indeed a victim of USA propaganda once again bc I remember reading about how the dumb Russians were at like 3 or 5 to 1 during this Ukrainian war.
regardless, 10:1 would still put the numbers much higher than 184.
Do you think that Russia's method of sending cannon fodder into artillery and machine gun fire are representative of the tactics employed by USA that led to the 10:1 figure?
This should show you how relying on broad overgeneralizations instead of looking at the actual situation is going to lead you to false conclusions as it's apparently done in both conflicts.
So yeah, given the accepted 10:1 ratio, 185 Israeli soldier deaths (or whatever the exact number is, I am not sure) is on the high side, but well within expectations if those Haaretz numbers are close to correct.
Haaretz reported 4500 had been admitted to hospitals on Dec 10th. the 185 number was reported today Jan 9th.
it takes a lot of fudging to make those numbers add up.
Haaretz reported 4500 had been admitted to hospitals on Dec 10th. the 185 number was reported today Jan 9th.
it takes a lot of fudging to make those numbers add up.
Well per your article, soldiers transferred to another hospital get counted twice. Soldiers admitted for reasons unrelated to wounds received in battle get counted. You can also read my posts on why getting soldiers to hospital speedily is a good indicator of reduced death, not increased. I don't count these things as fudging, just errors in the method of gathering this stat and comparing it unknown military criteria as well as an overall flaw in logic in applying stats from different warzones with usually more difficulty in evacuation to what we see in Israel.
Do you think that Russia's method of sending cannon fodder into artillery and machine gun fire are representative of the tactics employed by USA that led to the 10:1 figure?
This should show you how relying on broad overgeneralizations instead of looking at the actual situation is going to lead you to false conclusions as it's apparently done in both conflicts.
I am not comparing USA to Russia.
I am comparing USA to Israel. or Russia to Israel.
and if you want to look at the actual situation, there is not really a recent analog for the USA entering a bombed out urban area against a committed and entrenched enemy with many young inexperienced conscripts.
