News Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict,

[kat]

I find the analysis of the deaths of children about 3/4's of the way down, interesting, as well as tragic.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439

More on the deaths of children

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=16&x_article=346

 

[Zero]

It would have been better if CAMERA wasn't such a pro-Israel site...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Oh I'm sure that Israel is very surgical when it comes to killing palestinians. The issue has more to do with geopolitical trade alliances than casualty statistics skewed for shock value however. The grossly uncivilized trade policies formulated by israel and america have caused far far more casualties worldwide than any number if suicide bombers. That's why we rule the world.

 

[Zero]

Anyways, this is apples and oranges. This is like comparing drug dealer shooting cops and innocents, to police gunning down civilians while chacing drug dealers. When looked at that way, NO statistical analysis is going to cover Israels crime against humanity.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
It would have been better if CAMERA wasn't such a pro-Israel site...

All sites and reporters have their own brand of bias, zero. If there's something erroneous about the facts presented, please feel free to offer corrections.


You continuously insinuate that israeli's purposely and unscrupulously target and gun down children on a weekly basis, I thought you might be interested in looking at the some of the various issues involved, factually based.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
All sites and reporters have their own brand of bias, zero. If there's something erroneous about the facts presented, please feel free to offer corrections.


You continuously insinuate that israeli's purposely and unscrupulously target and gun down children on a weekly basis, I thought you might be interested in looking at the some of the various issues involved, factually based.

For you, 'factually based' means 'pro-Israel, all the time', at least based on that CAMERA website.

Israelis gun down civilians indiscriminantly...the difference between them and Palestinian terrorists is that 1) they are better at killing Palestinians, 2) any time a Palestinian picks up a gun to defend himself he becomes a combatant, 3) the Israeli troops act in an official manner, supported by US tax dollars, so we have a right to look at it more closely.

 

[plus]

Why are the vast makority of israli combatants killed 20 - 24?

Is this to do with conscription?

 

[damgo]

The majority of combatants anywhere would be in that age group I'd guess... but yeah, Israel does have mandatory military service, unless you're ultra-Orthodox.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
For you, 'factually based' means 'pro-Israel, all the time', at least based on that CAMERA website.

Israelis gun down civilians indiscriminantly...the difference between them and Palestinian terrorists is that 1) they are better at killing Palestinians, 2) any time a Palestinian picks up a gun to defend himself he becomes a combatant, 3) the Israeli troops act in an official manner, supported by US tax dollars, so we have a right to look at it more closely.

Well, again your response has fallen to insult and rhetoric, I specificly asked you to provide corrections to anything you disagreed with. Instead it appears that all your capable of is spewing forth hateful anti-israeli rhetoric without any factual or statistical support, apparently I should just shut up, stop posting my israeli loving rhetoric and take your word for it.

Maybe you should stop spewing hatred and support your position with facts and statistics.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by plus
Why are the vast makority of israli combatants killed 20 - 24?

Is this to do with conscription?

Conscription starts at 18, according to this article in the 15-19 year old range only 19 year old combatants have been killed, no 18 year old combatants have been killed. That would explain the higher concentration of 20-24 year olds.

 

[GENIERE]

Kat:

Leftists can rarely support positions with facts. Demagoguery is their only weapon. Show some pity, please.

Regards

 

[N_Quire]

Kat,
One person's facts are another person's opinions. What are facts and statistics without an ideological framework with which to make sense of them?

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...if I don't bow down to pro-Israel interpretations of the facts, I am showing hate? If I don't bend over backwards to fit the statistics to put Israel in a positive light, I must be lying, huh?

And, of course, instead f thinking, you just say 'leftist', instead of using your brain.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...if I don't bow down to pro-Israel interpretations of the facts, I am showing hate? If I don't bend over backwards to fit the statistics to put Israel in a positive light, I must be lying, huh?

And, of course, instead f thinking, you just say 'leftist', instead of using your brain.

Another post devoid of any facts or references (the term red herring comes to mind).
again, where are the facts and references to support your opinion?
Very simply, if you can offer no facts or reference your argument is unsupported opinion. please toss the rhetoric and support your statements, whether pro- or anti-, with facts and references.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Another post devoid of any facts or references (the term red herring comes to mind).
again, where are the facts and references to support your opinion?
Very simply, if you can offer no facts or reference your argument is unsupported opinion. please toss the rhetoric and support your statements, whether pro- or anti-, with facts and references.

I was using your facts and evidence against you...read it again. I simply said that comparing Suicide bombers to troops is like comparing apples and oranges, and stated several reasons why. If you don't like my reasons, argue against them, not at my 'hate'.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
I was using your facts and evidence against you...read it again. I simply said that comparing Suicide bombers to troops is like comparing apples and oranges, and stated several reasons why. If you don't like my reasons, argue against them, not at my 'hate'.

I'm not sure how you can use "my" facts and evidence against me, as I am not making an argument, only opening it up for discussion. I used the ICT statistics because it is the only one to date that I have found that identifies palestinians as combatants and non-combatants, and identifies deaths caused by palestinian against palestinian as seperate. It's also the only one I see that really addresses the issues facing children on both sides. Including the tragedy of palestinian children, particularly young boys from not only israeli soldiers but the encouragement and recruiting of hezbollah, fatah and government propaganda. If you can find a comparable site for comparision I have no problem at all looking at it.

Also,I'm sorry, I don't quite see how drug dealers and cops are valid comparisions?

 

[N_Quire]

Take what you call bare facts, nothing but lists of numbers, now interpret them, but hang on, don't give that job to a Palestinian or an Israeli, give it to an American and not just any American but one without a dog in the fight. Give the job of interpreting data to someone who knows nothing of the conflict, its history, the reasons why 'a' hates 'b' and vice versa.

What happens next? People with a dog in the fight say that their special situation has not been taken into account, that the interpretation has to be weighted to take into account the holocaust or the murder of Palestinian refugees, etc, etc. In other words, there is no such thing as a completely dispassionate interpretation of facts. Your values, your background, your agenda, they all all play in.

 

[Hurkyl]

Kat isn't offering her own interpretation of facts, nor is she asking an independant to analyze them.

She's asking for you (that's a plural you) to provide facts and analysis.

 

[N_Quire]

But I'm too busy complaining to get my hands dirty with facts and analysis.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Kat isn't offering her own interpretation of facts, nor is she asking an independant to analyze them.

She's asking for you (that's a plural you) to provide facts and analysis.

I DID provide analysis...but since it doesn't agree with thegeneral cheerleading for Israel, it is somehow invalid.

My point was, no matter how bad criminals are, the cops aren't allowed to kill children to getthem. In teh same way, I don't care if every single Israeli is killed by a terrorist, the soldiers are NOT ALLOWED TO INDISCRIMINANTLY KILL CIVILIANS.

That is such a hard concept for so many people to understand...but, Israel is 'special', so the rules don't apply to them.

 

[Hurkyl]

I DID provide analysis

Where is it? You've not provided one shred of evidence that soldiers are indiscriminately killing civilians, and it's fairly daft to make such an unsubstantiated claim given the pretty strong evidence at the ICT site that such a claim is false.

 

[Zero]

Since both sites are rabidly pro-Israel, their data is assumed to be skewed. Neither site, in all the pages I looked at, ever ONCE showed a single thing that Israel has done wrong...which means that both sites are intentionally incomplete(lying may be too strong of a word)


First off, I have been discussing interpretation of facts...not the facts themselves. The Israelis killed three times as many Palestinians as they lost.

Secondly, who decides who is a non-combatant? Israel, of course...and as pointed out earlier, a Palestinian man who hears shooting and picks up a gun to defend his home could be mistaken for a combatant. If someone comes onto my property, in my land, they are an invader. Israelis in teh occupied territories are easily seen to be invaders.

And again, my point...soldiers are not allowed to kill civilians, especially children. Not a single one. Any other attitude stikes me as being in support of genocide.

 

[Zero]

Or, let's look at another number provided...617 noncombatants killed by Israel. That is out of 1596 total Palestinian fatalities. That means that 40% of the people that Israeli soldiers killed were noncombatants. That may as well be a dictionary definition of indiscriminant.

 

[Hurkyl]

*gasp* so you can perform analysis. Since you're capable of such a thing, it makes one wonder what your motivation for waiting this long to do it, and pretending that you were doing an analysis up until this point.



Now that we're actually discussing the facts this may get interesting. Ignoring the "who's worse than who" topic (for now anyways), the thing that struck me most was the statistical distribution of fatalities.

Graphs 1.5, 1.6, 2.16, and 2.18 were particularly interesting, indicating that there have been extremely few Palestinian female fatalities.

The age distribution of Palestinian fatalities listed in graphs 2.21 and 2.22 shows a strong pattern as well.

These 4 graphs strongly indicate that there is a strong pattern in who the Israeli kill.



As for the percentage you state, 40% noncombatant fatality rate, I unfortunately do not know of a baseline against which I can compare (other than the Israeli fatality rate which I said I wouldn't use).



I've gone through the ICT page again, and I don't see the rabid bias of which you speak. The primary thesis, to me, seemed to be to characterize the past two and a half years of conflict into 4 distinct phases. The secondary point, to me, seemed to be to demonstrate the strong evidence that the Israeli are not out there randomly killing people. The article doesn't try to paint a rosy picture of Israeli actions, it mentions events like the "Israeli 'targetted' killing in Gaza", admits possible problems in Israeli field tactics, and explains some data via Israeli incursions into Palestinian Authority territory.

And even if the site is rabidly pro-Israel, numbers don't lie. If the presentations are wrong, then you can reinterpret the numbers to show that. Simply dismissing the entire article as being biased isn't sufficient.



I'm not an Israel fanboy; it just happens that on the one side I've seen in-depth throrough analysis that demonstrates that the Israeli's aren't so bad, and on the other hand the arguments I see on Israeli being "evil" are oversimplified appeal mostly to emotion and not reason. What I see is essentially (to greatly simplify things):

"Israel is bad: see fact A!"
"Israel isn't so bad, sure there's fact A, but fact B mitigates that."
"Israel is bad: see fact A!"

without a "fact C" supporting the "Israel is bad" camp, or at least a sound debunking of the fact B explanation, the only rational conclusion I can make is that the "Israel is bad" camp doesn't have a sound argument.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl



As for the percentage you state, 40% noncombatant fatality rate, I unfortunately do not know of a baseline against which I can compare (other than the Israeli fatality rate which I said I wouldn't use).

You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence.

Not incompetence, terrorism - by the Arabs. The Arabs use human shields to MAXIMIZE their own civilian casualties just like Saddam did. Thats a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

Also, incompetece is one thing, but it can't be argued that the Arabs even TRY to target combatants. They specifically target civilians.

Zero, just to clarify, do you believe the numbers or not? And if not how far off do you think they are? And do you have any source for better numbers?

I frankly didn't read much of that site, but I just looked at the graphs. Unless the numbers are fabrications, graphs cannot be biased.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Not incompetence, terrorism - by the Arabs. The Arabs use human shields to MAXIMIZE their own civilian casualties just like Saddam did. Thats a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

Also, incompetece is one thing, but it can't be argued that the Arabs even TRY to target combatants. They specifically target civilians.

Zero, just to clarify, do you believe the numbers or not? And if not how far off do you think they are? And do you have any source for better numbers?

I frankly didn't read much of that site, but I just looked at the graphs. Unless the numbers are fabrications, graphs cannot be biased.

That human shield thing...show me numbers, does that explain away a large percentage of the INNOCENTS GUNNED DOWN?(I have to use caps, no one here listens...)


And what about reports of Israeli soldiers shooting from behind Palestinian prosoners, using them as human shields?

 

[N_Quire]

What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
That human shield thing...show me numbers, does that explain away a large percentage of the INNOCENTS GUNNED DOWN?(I have to use caps, no one here listens...)

Another interesting point: innocents. Its tough to distinguish the combatants from the non-combatants in this fight (on one side, anyway). So if anything the numbers we get show HIGHER than actual non-combatant casualties. They don't for example, take into account that a willing human shield is a combatant or that a 12 year old with an AK-47 is a combatant. After the dust settles all you see is a dead woman and child - so they are counted as civilian casualties since its tough to prove they are not.

And what about reports of Israeli soldiers shooting from behind Palestinian prosoners, using them as human shields?

I can't comment on reports I haven't seen.

In any case, I'm hearing the same thing as always from you, Zero - murder is justified (oxymoron) if its Israelis that are killed and facts that don't show the Israelis as the bad guys must be biased (or lies).

What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state.

I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly most people believe those are things the Israelis should be doing.

I had another thought last night (thats two this month already!). The peace proposals are generally termed "land for peace" deals. Ie, Israel gives up land and in return the Arabs stop being terrorists. Doesn't that imply that the Arabs are the agressors? Wouldn't signing such an agreement be tantamount to an admission by the Arabs that they are the agressors? They like to say they are "retaliating" though. Hmm...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


In any case, I'm hearing the same thing as always from you, Zero - murder is justified (oxymoron) if its Israelis that are killed and facts that don't show the Israelis as the bad guys must be biased (or lies).

In any case, you show your inability to read what I actually post, Russ...do you need me to call you and read my posts to you slowly? Would it help if I dressed like Barney the Purple %@$#& Dinosaur? I've never said that Israeli losses are good...NEVER. Your subconscious fills that in so you can dismiss facts that conflict with your worldview, apparently. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the standards are different, because soldiers are professional, and terrorists are criminals. We don't let cops act like crooks, do we? Unless they are Israeli, I guess?



I used the stats Kat provided to prove my point that Israeli troops indiscriminantly kill noncombatants. Her stats came from a pro-Israel website...what more do you want?

 

[FZ+]

Another interesting point: innocents. Its tough to distinguish the combatants from the non-combatants in this fight (on one side, anyway). So if anything the numbers we get show HIGHER than actual non-combatant casualties. They don't for example, take into account that a willing human shield is a combatant or that a 12 year old with an AK-47 is a combatant. After the dust settles all you see is a dead woman and child - so they are counted as civilian casualties since its tough to prove they are not.

Simple test. How many guns have they recovered? How many grenades/suicide bomb belts. Compare that to the number of people killed, both combatant and non-combatant. Of course, some guns may be shared, but when you have 10 dead bodies to 1 AK47, that says something, doesn't it? In general, bodies are counted with bias towards them being combatants. Because if you don't, you can end up with a court martial.

And now apparently the Israelis are expelling members of peace activist and human rights groups, after an activist got shot with some palestinian kids.

Repeat after me:
We cannot justify the killing of civilians. But we must strive to understand them. Understand does not equal Justify.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sigh, Zero, I notice that you are continuing to assert that Israelis are indiscriminately killing noncombatants without addressing evidence to the contrary. Broken records don't convince anyone of anything.

You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence.

I do if I want to form my opinions based on fact. I would certainly agree that 40% sounds high, but I'm not deluded enough to think that I have enough knowledge of military conflict for that to be an informed thought. I'm not going to fall for your sensationalist junk.

What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state.

If that's your baseline, then that is what you should be arguing.

 

[Zero]

*sigh*

Thise stats were good enough for you when they supported Israel. When something in them doesn't support Israel, there must be more to it? When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of ANY wrongdoing in this situation?

 

[Zero]

Something sort of peripheral...


This is what happens when soldiers are doing what is basically police work. The strategies of a military action do not function well in a peacekeeping situation. A similar situation is occurring in America, where police who are adopting military tactics against drug dealers are causing civilian casualties. Therefore, this is more a tactics issue than it is a specific condenmation of teh existence of Israel, or anything like that.

 

[Hurkyl]

Thise stats were good enough for you when they supported Israel.

Correct, but merely corrolative.

The stats were good enough for me because I know do enough about population demographics to be reasonably confident that more than 5% of the Palestinian people are female and that the age distribution is nowhere near a "textbook" skewed bell curve.

I don't know enough about military conflict to have anything to which I can compare a 40% noncombatant fatality rate.

When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of ANY wrongdoing in this situation?

I'm sure Israel is guilty of some wrongdoing. I've never suggested otherwise.

However, I see no evidence they're guilty of the particular wrongdoing of which you accuse them, and plenty of evidence they are not guilty of that wrongdoing, thus I believe that they are not guilty of indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

 

[Zero]

The problem, of course, is that this isn't a military situation, simply because the Palestinians have no army. It is a police action, and there is no way to justify a %40 civilian fatality in a police action.

 

[Zero]

Or, put another way...would you put trust in a doctor who killed 40% of his patients? Would you buy a car which had a brake faliure rate of 40%?

 

[Hurkyl]

Or, put another way...would you put trust in a doctor who killed 40% of his patients?

If the doctor was a specialist in treating a condition with a 60% fatality rate, then most definitely.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If the doctor was a specialist in treating a condition with a 60% fatality rate, then most definitely.

Nice rationalization, great way to dodge the question. Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd like to point out you still haven't addressed the evidence that opposes your assertions that the Israeli are indiscriminately killing Palestinians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is your main point, isn't it? Maybe you should spend some effort defending it.

Nice rationalization, great way to dodge the question.

Dodging the question[?] I don't think I could have asked for a better set-up line to demonstrate the fallacy one makes when one makes conclusions from figures without the necessary context to lend validity to those conclusions. Face it, you tried defending poor logic and you got burned.


The reason I don't wholeheartedly accept your assertion that 40% noncombatant killing is unreasonably high, as I mentioned in previous posts, is because I don't have anything to which I can compare it.

All other things being typical, I would refuse to go to a doctor who killed 40% of his patients because I know that doctors kill a very small percentage of their patients in virtually every circumstance.

I would refuse to buy a car that had a brake failure rate of 40% because I know that cars in general have brake failure rates much lower than 40%, and beyond that I know how often I use my brakes and how bad of a problem that would be.


However, I don't know that 40% noncombatant fatalities is an unreasonable rate for military occupation of a state with a large, actively resisting terrorist organization.

Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?

Again, it's all about the context. For an extremely obvious counterexample, suppose 3 criminals are standing in the middle of a large dense crowd and start randomly firing AK-47s. Can you argue that the accidental killing of 2 bystanders in a hasty effort to eliminate the criminals, thus minimizing casualties, would be unreasonable?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


However, I don't know that 40% noncombatant fatalities is an unreasonable rate for military occupation of a state with a large, actively resisting terrorist organization.




Again, it's all about the context. For an extremely obvious counterexample, suppose 3 criminals are standing in the middle of a large dense crowd and start randomly firing AK-47s. Can you argue that the accidental killing of 2 bystanders in a hasty effort to eliminate the criminals, thus minimizing casualties, would be unreasonable?

Well, to me it means that they need to change tactics...and as far as aiming into a crowd, they should be willing to DIE before gunning down children and other innocents. Wouldn't you rather run and maybe shot, rather than empty an assault rifle into a group of people? My personal military training suggested that you don't even put your finger on the trigger unless you are sure of your target. A moving target amongst moving civilians is not a sure target.




At the very least, it should make you question their presence and tactics. If this happened in America, there would be outrage, not all these attempts to justify Israelis shooting chldren.

 

[Hurkyl]

Let me make sure my example was clear; the criminals are killing the civilians in the crowd. Every second the military waits while waiting for that perfect shot is another few civilians who get killed. Okay to take the fast shot and kill 2 civilians in the process, or should you wait until you have a clean shot (and the criminals have killed 6 or 8 more civilians)

At the very least, it should make you question their presence and tactics. If this happened in America, there would be outrage, not all these attempts to justify Israelis shooting chldren.

I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Would it help if I dressed like Barney the Purple %@$#& Dinosaur?

Yes. That would explain a LOT.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes. That would explain a LOT.

Well, it would explain why your political opinions are on such a low level...but being a Repubilcan explains it too!


(OK< you get one more dig at me, and we're even, ok?)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Let me make sure my example was clear; the criminals are killing the civilians in the crowd. Every second the military waits while waiting for that perfect shot is another few civilians who get killed. Okay to take the fast shot and kill 2 civilians in the process, or should you wait until you have a clean shot (and the criminals have killed 6 or 8 more civilians)




I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.

Your example is so wrong as to be laughable. The Palestinian bombers are dead...so who are the Israeli troops after? And, the Palestinians are firing on invaders into their land...if the Israeli troops weren't in Palestinian land, they wouldn't be fired on. And, since the crowds are in danger ONLY from Israeli fire, what would be wrong with simply withdrawing?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl





I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.

This has bothered me all night, and I just figured out why...

You have 'sufficient information', based on the graphs, to support Israel...and yet my very simple '40%' stumps you, coincidentally something that paints Israel in a bad light. Well, I am supposed to believe it is coincidence, right?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Since making direct attacks at members is
prohibited I'd just like to advise the
following: If you see a member who posts
racist and hatefull messages all the time
full of many lies and ussualy also empty
of any real information except provocative
statements confirming the above extreme views,
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
It's a free forum - let that person throw
out the grabage until even he becomes sick
of himself and in the meantime discuss
the subject in a civilized manner with
people who are willing to do just that.
Just a suggestion...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Hurkyl]

Shall I assume by your repeated neglect of the evidence against it that your main point is not that Israel is indiscriminately killing Palestinians?

Your example is so wrong as to be laughable.

How can a hypothetical question be wrong[?] I'm beginning to think you don't want to discuss anything, you just want to be contrary.

The purpose of my example was to try to extract your meaning behind saying

Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?

Interpreting the phrasing pedantically, I would to answer no. Because it does indeed matter how dangerous the criminals are, it is literally not reasonable to shoot bystanders no matter how dangerous the criminals are.

If that's the answer for which you were fishing, then great; I'm fishing for that as well.

I presumed that was not the answer for which you were looking, because that type of construct is usually used to press for a different response. I choose an extreme hypothetical example to ascertain if criminals could possibly be dangerous enough for you to agree it is reasonable for the police to accidentally kill innocent bystanders while trying to get the bad guys.

You have 'sufficient information', based on the graphs, to support Israel

I have sufficient information, based on the graphs and prior knowledge about population distributions, to support Israel against the allegation that they are indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

I have neither asserted nor denied any other statements regarding any other issues about Israeli actions, though I have refused to accept half of a comparison as a complete fact.

and yet my very simple '40%' stumps you, coincidentally something that paints Israel in a bad light. Well, I am supposed to believe it is coincidence, right?

No, you're supposed to believe it's because '40%' is half of a fact.

I've even been refraining from connecting the '40%' to another statistic which I do have to allow you greater freedom in making your case. I've even admitted 40% sounds bad, hoping you would follow up to give some real proof. However, I'm simply not going to be convinced by your sensationalist junk.

(incidentally, the other statistic is the 80% Israeli noncombatant fatality rate)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Since making direct attacks at members is
prohibited I'd just like to advise the
following: If you see a member who posts
racist and hatefull messages all the time
full of many lies and ussualy also empty
of any real information except provocative
statements confirming the above extreme views,
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
It's a free forum - let that person throw
out the grabage until even he becomes sick
of himself and in the meantime discuss
the subject in a civilized manner with
people who are willing to do just that.
Just a suggestion...

Live long and prosper.

Hmmm...pointing out that Israelis aren't showing proper restraint in the use of force is racism?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


(incidentally, the other statistic is the 80% Israeli noncombatant fatality rate)

Now I say 'apples and oranges' again, because you simply cannot compare terrorist actions to police actions...unless you are calling the Israeli troops terrorists as well? Wow, not even I was willingto go there!