New War In Israel / Gaza

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

I already shared the video in this thread a while back, but I will share it again. He uses examples to demonstrate whats the problem if you don't use the per capita version of it. 

So here is the video time stamped:

 

Thank you. I will read again all your main explanation and graphs.

By the graphs you added based on this formulation, Israel is placed in the extreme careful side of the scale if I understood it right, In terms of casualities.

Not in material damage there the picture is different.

Edited February 16 by Nivsch

[zurew]

58 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

By the graphs you added based on this formulation, Israel is placed in the extreme careful side of the scale if I understood it right, In terms of casualities.

Yes, if we plug in the numbers to calculate the relative risk (RR) for this war , it will be high (the higher the RR, the higher the likelihood that militants are being targeted over civilians) and even if we use hamas friendly numbers, according to this metric , this is a quantitative evidence against the hypothesis that Israel is indiscriminately targeting everyone.

Here is the current ongoing unfinished project that this dude does, where he calculates the Relative Risk (RR) for multiple wars. People can look at this and can get a sense, how well or how bad it tracks genocidal intent.

There are explainers on the graph for how you need to interpret the graph.

 

Edited February 16 by zurew

[zurew]

Here is the same graph with civilian casualty ratio as well (all the orange supposed to show the civilian casualty ratio and the blue the relative risk).

Edited February 16 by zurew

[Nivsch]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Here is the same graph with civilian casualty ratio as well (all the orange supposed to show the civilian casualty ratio and the blue the relative risk).

I understand it organaized from the best (left) to the worst (right) when we want to see both the most positive blue and the most negative orange which is the best outcome.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Nivsch said:

we want to see both the most positive blue and the most negative orange which is the best outcome.

Yes, but ideally for the reasons I mentioned before , we should focus on relative risk (the blue) rather than on both or only on civilian casualty ratio. 

 

Now of course, none of these metrics are absolute. The more variables we add, the bigger picture we can get about the war, however the issue is with the weighing of all variables. For instance, in my view, relative risk has much more weight and is much more informative assessing genocidal intent, than damage done to buildings, but of course that damage shouldn't be ignored.

There are still of course ways to try to establish genocidal intent, but it will be hard, because you will have to explain how can you get such high relative risk, when you have genocidal intent in mind (and even there are other contradictory factors that you will have to blast through).

Now, do you need to establish genocidal intent on Israel's part to make criticism towards Israel? No, of course not, and a lot of people here in this thread and in other places as well seem to forget that you don't have to die on this hill (that you have to prove genocideal intent). You can defend the Palestinian side without needing to use weak and bad arguments to prove genocidal intent. There are a lot of others crisicisms and arguments you can make against Israel and such arguments will be much easier to defend and to establish (for example damage done to buildings or you can pick any other thing).

Regardless what side you are on (anyone who is reading this) - people need to stop using civilian casualty ratio to prove genocidal intent, because relative risk is just more reliable for that.

Edited February 16 by zurew

[Nivsch]

On 16.2.2024 at 1:00 PM, Leo Gura said:

The civilian to combatant ratio on Oct 7th was something like 2:1.

Yes this is when this parameter get completely out of meaning, when we know that their intention was to kill anyone indisciminantly, including Israeli Arabs even, as long there are placed in Israel.

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

when we know that their intention was to kill anyone indisciminantly

Yeah one of the strongest argument to support this is the fact that when Hamas first arrived on oct 7, there were no Israeli soldiers near them  (most of them were at home on a holiday). There were places where Israeli soldiers only arrived 4-6  or more hours after the attack, so at those places Hamas could literally do freely whatever they wanted and they still killed civilians (so , it would be nearly impossible to talk around how they werent intentionally targeting civilians).

Also what possible reasoning could be given attacking people at a music festival?

Btw im surprised this  still considered contentious for some people here.

[Nivsch]

@zurew Absolutely agree with you.

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

Yes this is when this parameter get completely out of meaning, when we know that their intention was to kill anyone indisciminantly, including Israeli Arabs even, as long there are placed in Israel.

What does it say about your government if even with their best intentions they are not more accurate than terrorists?

[hundreth]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What does it say about your government if even with their best intentions they are not more accurate than terrorists?

It really doesn't say anything. Hamas stumbled upon an unprepared military outpost just as they stumbled upon a music festival. Dead jews are dead jews.

Hamas on the other hand, doesn't have clearly defined military outposts. There is no equivalent of a sitting duck unprepared Hamas base just waiting there. 

The Hamas civilian casualty rate is completely irrelevant. 

[Nivsch]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What does it say about your government if even with their best intentions they are not more accurate than terrorists?

By "best intention" you mean that my government really try to not harm civilians and still not accurate at all in the outcome? Or that you mean that it doesnt really try in your opinion because otherwise the outcome would be different?

Edited February 17 by Nivsch

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

What does it say about your government if even with their best intentions they are not more accurate than terrorists?

   So true! It's probably the biggest weakness in all arguments from Israel's side.

[Danioover9000]

   BTW, facts don't care about your feelings is wrong:

   All people care about is not facts, but feelings instead. Feelings don't care about facts, and facts depends on feelings.

   All people care about are stories, narratives, and metaphors. so @zurew  and your fancy graphs, it doesn't matter. All this:

On 2024-02-16 at 1:22 PM, zurew said:

Yes, if we plug in the numbers to calculate the relative risk (RR) for this war , it will be high (the higher the RR, the higher the likelihood that militants are being targeted over civilians) and even if we use hamas friendly numbers, according to this metric , this is a quantitative evidence against the hypothesis that Israel is indiscriminately targeting everyone.

Here is the current ongoing unfinished project that this dude does, where he calculates the Relative Risk (RR) for multiple wars. People can look at this and can get a sense, how well or how bad it tracks genocidal intent.

There are explainers on the graph for how you need to interpret the graph.

 

 

On 2024-02-16 at 2:33 PM, zurew said:

Here is the same graph with civilian casualty ratio as well (all the orange supposed to show the civilian casualty ratio and the blue the relative risk).

are facts that are subservient to biases and preferences and worldviews of any one ego. It's only persuasive and convincing because of the metanarratives and propaganda throughout the decades-centuries of this conflict between Israel and Palestine, and USA and Russia.

Edited February 17 by Danioover9000

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

By "best intention" you mean that my government really try to not harm civilians and still not accurate at all in the outcome? Or that you mean that it doesnt really try in your opinion because otherwise the outcome would be different?

It's like if I was hunting for birds with sticks of dynamite and when the bird lands on your house I throw the dynamite through the window of your child's bedroom.

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's like if I was hunting for birds with sticks of dynamite and when the bird lands on your house I throw the dynamite through the window of your child's bedroom.

I dont know Leo. There are so many terror targets and booby traps to attack built over 18 years for IDF and we all know hamas tactic to get mixed with civilians. Maybe 1.5 : 1 ratio is unavoidable. Maybe it could be better. Maybe not. I really dont know the answer.

I think that if my government wanted to kill indiscriminantly the ratio was 20:1 (and not 1.5:1). I can agree that the exaggerated material damage is maybe affected by the fact that the goverment is very radical in relation to Israel's average. But about the casualities I tend to think differently than you.

IDF could not bomb anything but then invade a terror base full of traps in every neighborhood built especially for it for 18 years and fall like cards in front of it.

Edited February 17 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

If you compare the absolute numbers of civilians killed, the IDF numbers are insane next to Oct 7th. Not to mention the property damage.

Edited February 17 by Leo Gura

[MAHAVATAR_-_BABAJI]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's like if I was hunting for birds with sticks of dynamite and when the bird lands on your house I throw the dynamite through the window of your child's bedroom.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. If the U.S was invaded like Israel was what would we do? 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you compare the absolute numbers of civilians killed, the IDF numbers are insane next to Oct 7th

Why would you use the absolute numbers of civilians killed to establish intent?

I already gave posts why thats a much worse metric to go by compared to relative risk.

[Nivsch]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you compare the absolute numbers of civilians killed, the IDF numbers are insane next to Oct 7th. Not to mention the property damage.

But this war's goal is to eliminate hamas completely. This will necessarily take so much more time than the oct 7th attack. Then of course the damage will be far higher.

Edited February 17 by Nivsch

[Twentyfirst]

1 minute ago, MAHAVATAR_-_BABAJI said:

Haha Leo does not live in Israel. Do you fight in war for Israel?

There is always a bias. The U.S is no different or better when it comes to war and killing of civilians.

 

Why are people that live in USA and Israel so confident that what they choose to do with their tax dollars will never come back to bite them in the ass?