I don’t think the article does a good job of comparing the numbers from Gaza to those of other recent battles in the region. The way Raqqa is presented is just wrong, with “in contrast” used to imply that that battle was safer for civilians when it in fact wasn’t.
My own math is very crude, because I’m just working with the numbers given in this article. I think a good analysis would include more factors, like the number of combatants involved. Even then, some things are going to be difficult to count accurately or even to quantify at all. It’s hard to do arithmetic on how many people are killed every day without appearing callous, and I don’t think I succeed, but that arithmetic is still necessary to understand what’s going on.
As I did already say, I’m trying to prove that the casualty data as presented in the article gives the incorrect impression that “by contrast” the battle in Gaza is unusually dangerous for civilians by comparing absolute numbers of daily casualties to those from a battle for a much smaller city which actually involved killing a larger fraction of that city’s civilians. The article is overall shallow, low-effort, and misleading.
The article might be low-effort, but you’re not putting much more effort either. I was hoping there was something behind all those numbera but no, it’s more or less "Stalin killed more people how bad Hitler could be?”. Thanks for your contribution.
I really dont understand the point of this kind of math. What is it suppose to demostrate?
I don’t think the article does a good job of comparing the numbers from Gaza to those of other recent battles in the region. The way Raqqa is presented is just wrong, with “in contrast” used to imply that that battle was safer for civilians when it in fact wasn’t.
My own math is very crude, because I’m just working with the numbers given in this article. I think a good analysis would include more factors, like the number of combatants involved. Even then, some things are going to be difficult to count accurately or even to quantify at all. It’s hard to do arithmetic on how many people are killed every day without appearing callous, and I don’t think I succeed, but that arithmetic is still necessary to understand what’s going on.
You didn’t answer my question: what were you trying to prove?
As I did already say, I’m trying to prove that the casualty data as presented in the article gives the incorrect impression that “by contrast” the battle in Gaza is unusually dangerous for civilians by comparing absolute numbers of daily casualties to those from a battle for a much smaller city which actually involved killing a larger fraction of that city’s civilians. The article is overall shallow, low-effort, and misleading.
The article might be low-effort, but you’re not putting much more effort either. I was hoping there was something behind all those numbera but no, it’s more or less "Stalin killed more people how bad Hitler could be?”. Thanks for your contribution.