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

[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!

 

[Hurkyl]

You have a better figure to compare it to?

why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?

Whether or not I expect the other side to argue their point intelligently, I find this type of discussion helps me develop greater precision in my arguments and thought processes. While I don't expect to change the other person's mind, the practice is still useful for other domains, it helps me be honest with myself about how much I know and don't know, and allows me to better recognize more sophisticated propaganda.

 

[Zero]

Maybe we should take it on its own merits?
Let's just say that 100% of the Israeli fatalities are not justified, ok? Because it is a criminal act performed by criminals. You cannot compare it to trained, professional soldiers, who may or may not be acting legally. If they are only doing right 60% of the time, we need to examine them more closely. No one else, it seems, wants to examine, just rationalize.

I'm done here...

 

[drag]

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.

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

It was a general statement as you can see,
so what made you think I was talking about you ?

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Whether or not I expect the other side to argue
their point intelligently, I find this type
of discussion helps me develop greater
precision in my arguments and thought
processes. While I don't expect to change the
other person's mind, the practice is still
useful for other domains, it helps me be honest
with myself about how much I know and don't
know, and allows me to better recognize more
sophisticated propaganda.

O.K. , if it's worth you time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Hurkyl]

If they are only doing right 60% of the time, we need to examine them more closely. No one else, it seems, wants to examine, just rationalize.

In order to rationalize, I'd have to argue that was acceptable. Have I done that?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

If I may, what if the non-combatant fatality rate were zero on the Palestinian side, so that only terrorist groups and leaders were eliminated in any case. Would the Israeli 80% figure change? I don't believe that it would. The two governments have not had anything productive to say to each other for a long time. The terrorism will not end unless 1 of 2 things happen - 1 most Palestinian are killed, or 2 Israel grants them basic human rights. I think that the situation has gone far past the latter being realistic.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
2 Israel grants them basic human rights.

Yeras ago Israel gave them all their rights,
it gave them money and arms, it supported its
government and offered them a country. But, the
ex-terrorists - the leaders with whom there
were negotiations decided they don't want that -
they want everything. If the palestinians were
to promise peace and it was known ahead that
they will really keep their word, not just for
a few hours after the promise, they'd have a
country in a couple of days with all the
general benefits and additions involved. They
just don't get it, never did so far.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Yeras ago Israel gave them all their rights,
it gave them money and arms, it supported its
government and offered them a country. But, the
ex-terrorists - the leaders with whom there
were negotiations decided they don't want that -
they want everything. If the palestinians were
to promise peace and it was known ahead that
they will really keep their word, not just for
a few hours after the promise, they'd have a
country in a couple of days with all the
general benefits and additions involved. They
just don't get it, never did so far.

Live long and prosper.

Something here...the idea that ALL Palestinians should pay for the actions of a small group of radical criminal killers...maybe that is the most unfair aspect of it all.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
Something here...the idea that ALL
Palestinians should pay for the
actions of a small group of radical
criminal killers...maybe that is the
most unfair aspect of it all.

A small group ?
A couple of years ago two Israeli reservists
made a wrong turn and found themselves in
a palestinian city. (An Italian reporter
filmed the lynch and was then threatened
to destroy the film but it was too late
and they just didn't show it in Italy because
they feared for their lives, it was shown
on the major news channels.)
They were arrested and taken to a
police station by the palestinians which
was then stormed by phousands of people
and the two reservists were practicly
torn apart. Their aggressive street demonstrations
ussualy include the majority of the population.
You simply don't get it, do you...
You just can't, because you weren't raized
to hate, you weren't told by your parents,
teachers and everybody else that to kill
is good, to kill and get killed and thus
become a shahid is the best fate possible
and you'll go to heaven. You haven't seen
the great happiness on the faces of mothers
when their children exploded killing innocent
civilians as those mothers shout that they
have many more sons to sacrifice.
Such things happened before many times
in history, but that was a long time ago -
not today, not in the modern age.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

There are two facts here that I think most people agree with and to me show unequivocably why one side is morally above the other:

1. The Arabs target civilians as their primary mode of attack.

2. The Israelis do not target civilians.

Until the Arabs realize that this is the reason the world community doesn't have any sympathy for them, their problem will never be resolved.

Has anyone read "The Sum of All Fears"? Arabs begin practicing non-violent resistance which instantly changes world opinion and forces the Israelis to deal. They should try it.

drag, to me the number of terrorists is irrelevant. The terrorists are the problem and everyone else isn't doing anything to counter the terrorists. The "peaceful" arabs may as well not exist if they are going to remain silent while people murder in their name.

 

[GENIERE]

Russ:

I agree with that. I’m also sure that an individual Israeli soldier may seek his own vengeance, despite having orders to minimize civilian casualties. If the terrorist stopped using shields, there would be few civilian deaths other then the targeted Israeli youth.

Regards