Nostr Web Client

How can you change the meaning of the words??? They may have incomplete information for some of these. They DID NOT REVISE their numbers down by half!

I'm saying the data can be incomplete and be correct. Also it's understandable that things can be incomplete given what Israel has done to Gaza.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-deaths-women-children-360c6aabc03421c718d4a8452cec2c67

j'ai les clés 1y ago

I mean, did you thoroughly read the article you just linked? It proves MY point about duplicate entries.

“The data provided to AP was imperfect in other ways. Among those people fully identified, some were listed twice by the ministry.“ Over 500 people in March, alone.

Okay, let’s try it another way. If I provide a number to the media and then later say that 50% of those records are, well, incomplete, you’re saying that’s not the same as revising the number down by half. You saying it’s okay to provide incomplete data because of the fog of war.

That’s NOT how fatality reporting works.

I’ve already shown you the implausibility of their figures, the impossibility of arriving at accurate numbers so quickly, and at least one actual example of a number (500 in a hospital) that was blamed on Israel, which was revised down (to 100-300), and later found to be the responsibility of Hamas’ own rockets hitting it’s own armaments depot in the parking lot of said hospital. And yet you continue to swallow their numbers as gospel?

I shudder to imagine the double standards that would be applied to Israel if they claimed a higher number of casualties and then said their records were “incomplete” when examined.

To wit, Hamas sympathizers deny the *actual* atrocities committed on 10/7 (murders, rapes, beheadings, and immolations) even as they were live streaming and celebrating them.

This whole this is just so twisted.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Louis Rossouw 1y ago

"Its count includes bodies that have not been claimed by families, or were decomposed beyond recognition, or whose records were lost in Israeli raids on hospitals -- plus individuals with incomplete records."

So the records are not complete but it does not mean they do not have a dead person!

They have not revised their figures by half! What you said is simply plainly wrong!

j'ai les clés 1y ago

Hamas is quoted in the WSJ that they rely on the media for some of their numbers, while the media also relies on Hamas for the numbers.

“Yet in a series of lengthy reports, the ministry admits that the figures the media treat as authoritative rely in part on reporting from . . . the media.“ https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamass-numbers-games-civilian-death-counts-casualty-data-b99140eb

It’s simply circular.

But, since you seem to be completely stuck on my statement that “Hamas revised its numbers down by half,” let’s look at what the UN said.

The UN says it is now relying on figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, rather than from the Hamas-run Government Media Office (GMO).

This is based on missing information and dubious reporting.

"It's not logically impossible... but it really strains credibility," says Prof Michael Spagat, who specialises in examining death tolls in conflicts around the world.

Louis Rossouw 1y ago

You raise 100s of other points but I have continuosly simply argued one point: You have wrongly stated they revised their figures by half. This does not address anything about the general accuracy of their figures or anything like that.

This is a very very simple point and if you cannot argue based on this simple point I am very sure you simply are inable to argue anything sensible on any of the other more complicated points you raise. I am done with this conversation.

j'ai les clés 1y ago

Very plainly, the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, reduced the confirmed number down 50% from what the Hamas-run Government Media Office (GMO) had previously reported.

When I said, “Hamas revised its numbers down by half,” THIS IS WHAT I AM REFERRING TO.