Wait, they used nukes?
Also, they didn’t kill people who might have guns, as I understand it. They killed people who did have guns, right?
Um, quick google shows 500K a year in the Cambodian genocide (1975-1979), so not right.
They killed guys who were guarding an aid convoy they knew about it because some of the guys unexpectedly had guns. I called it nuking because it sounds like they used a bomb to blow the vehicle up. It seems like if they were concerned about the guns and were in contact with the convoy, they could have told them to drop the guns rather than just blowing them all up. Apparently that would have been inconvenient.
My point is that we become comfortable in this reasoning, and then apply that way too broadly. Could those hostages be returned through a cease fire agreement, and what are the terms? Does that need to happen today, or could casualties be avoided if we wait for a better time?
We obviously don’t have good insights into all of these, but I think it is an extremely flawed position to assume that 100% of the innocent Palestinian lives lost to rescue one hostage can always be justified simply because of the situation. Maybe you disagree with that…but then I would ask, if the entire moral objection is removed due to a circumstance, what is left to prevent the slippery slope to extermination? You can move that arbitrary line as far in that direction as you want - you have literally set no moral boundary to prevent that.
4 Likes
Range is 1.2M to 2.8M over 5 years
Over 5Y, you get 240,000 - 560,000 per year.
Thats 20,000 to 47,000 per month. Gaza is 23,000 per month.
These are horrific numbers from an actual genocide that we are now comparing Gaza to.
You may as well stop twig.
TP isn’t going to admit that you have a point no matter how well you make it. Same way Poly won’t admit that the lancet study methodology is somewhat iffy and putting the onus for all the deaths resulting from the conflict on Israel is heinously biased.
No point yelling into the wind.
2 Likes
Considering that Israel is a nuclear power that seems like needlessly confusing and possibly inflammatory language.
“Bombing” would be appropriate if they used non-nuclear bombs.
No, and that is not the position I was advancing.
A) 100% chance of rescuing the hostage with no risk to your side and kill 100 innocent civilians on the other side.
B) 50% chance of rescuing the hostage with 10% chance of deaths on your side and kill 10 innocent civilians on the other side.
C) 10% chance of rescuing the hostage with 50% chance of deaths on your side and kill 0 innocent civilians on the other side.
Reasonable people could disagree on the appropriate course of action while still feeling that the hostage-takers are ultimately to blame for any deaths that do occur.
Uh, what? Are we talking about people killed?
Palestinians are saying 40,000 total (since October 2023), which includes a lot of militants.
IDF is saying I think 14,000 total.
No one, not even Gazans are saying 23,000 a month.
True
So clicking thru your link gives the time as " From April 1975 to January 1979, the government of Cambodia was officially known as Democratic Kampuchea . Today, many people in Cambodia remember its exact duration, “three years, eight months, and twenty days,” and are more likely to refer to this tragic period as “during Pol Pot”—the name taken by its actual leader, who died in 1998."
So not sure where you are getting 5 years from.
From the Lancet:
186,000 / c8 months = 23,000 per month
From his model design. He approximated the distributions and their correlations to 5Y (vs 3y8m)
Obviously this is a pretty wide guesstimate (from the 95%CI Interval) due the assumptions involved.
You do know that Lancet’s past estimates of deaths in other areas have been widely panned for being inaccurate, and almost nobody accepts them, right?
To get clarity on some of these arguments I want to restate them without the surrounding rhetoric.
- Legitimate targets include: Weapons caches, groups of opposition combatants, opposition leadership, armed opposition people no matter what task they are performing.
- The death of innocents is acceptable if the goal is a legitimate target.
- The incidental destruction of infrastructure is acceptable during the conduct of a campaign.
- Some innocents will be killed incidentally/accidentally during the conduct of a campaign.
A big open ended question for this conversation is how do we define hostages, prisoners, refugees within a zone of control, refugees outside a zone of control.
Generally the acceptable level of civilian deaths and/or infrastructure destruction is proportional to the value of the primary target.
Exactly what that proportion should be is not specified in law.
You also have D) work towards a cease fire and no on dies and the hostages come home.
If “all reasonable people blame any death” on the hostage takers is accurate, everyone would pick A from your list, but I think the fact that there are some pretty strong feelings out there means there are either a lot of unreasonable people “that have a problem” with that option, or the line is quite blurry on what the moral responsibility is in the situation.
1 Like
I’m really getting tired of your strawmen.
Uh… that’s a projection into the future. It’s not even an estimate of deaths that have already occurred.
You are misconstruing model construction techniques with what is actually being estimated. Both from his table headings and this quote:
“In spite of the potential limitations, I followed most previous analysts and focused on the PPR death toll, defined as the difference in the estimated number of deaths between prevailing and counterfactual mortality—that is, “excess” mortality—strictly during the period the PPR was in power. I also sought to estimate the subset of these excess deaths that could be identified as violent deaths.”
(emphasis mine) it seems very clear the deaths are those occurring in the limited period.
1 Like