There's a reason it's Afghanistan people cite here, and not Iraq. Even counts of dead children aren't neutral. There's no way around taking time to learn about things; you can't sum things up with a grisly picture or a grim scorecard. Or you can, I don't know, maybe it works great. It's what we've been trying to do up 'til now. How's it going?
I'm really not interested in lining up and correcting the scorecards, so much as I am in the broader point that what people suppose to be simple, clarifying jolts of information --- body counts, horrible photos, whatever --- don't so much clarify as nudge people towards a preferred narrative.
That doesn't make them wrong. There is truth and there is falsity and for every important, complicated truth, there are people who "prefer" the narrative that conveys it. But it's not the body count that establishes the truth, it's the underlying work that went into revealing it.
The truth of the situation you're intent on nudging us about is intensely complicated.
I am sorry but stating the truth is beyond criticism. If someone is wrong you can state a different fact that illuminates their facts, or wait until they lie, which they must do if they are sticking with the wrong ideas.
You can't criticize someone for saying something that's true, and people only do so when they are losing the argument. If you're so beaten back that you're resorting to that, I will help you: Hamas killed more Israeli children than Saddam killed American children.
In addition to the problem that the parent commenter seems to be comprehensively wrong, just as a matter of fact, they're also obviously not just stating simple facts to contribute to the body of knowledge we draw from to make our own conclusions; there is a clear subtext to the "facts" they're providing (again, scare-quoting because that's not what they are --- though, give it another month, and check again).
But, more generally, you're just not responding to anything I actually wrote.
I mean, to me it seems that they are in fact just stating “facts”. What, in your eyes, is the “correct” way to state those purported facts that would “contribute to the body of knowledge we draw on the make our own conclusions“?
"Your facts are biased," is only a legitimate rejoinder if you offer the rest of the facts. Otherwise it is a tool that could be used against anything the speaker doesn't want to acknowledge.
"Reality is too complex to understand, therefore the understanding you are offering must be wrong," is also a way to argue against anything, unless it's accompanied by some part of that reality that the other person cannot explain with their theory.
I think your post is a good next post for the conversation, I am only complaining about vague methods of shifting the discussion away from facts and towards suspicions.
An Israeli father (and media in general) thought his own daughter died and turned out to be wrong when she was released (she was kept as a hostage which I don't think is right but she was not killed).
https://twitter.com/moghilemear13/status/1728629391373029792
The same media that's wrong about this is giving other information based on similar assumptions (granted that they were corrected).
Sadly the troops are only in the early stages of controlling the area and that number is going to rise a lot if the war is brought to a military completion the way politicians sound like they intend to.
If you check the figures most of the deaths were early in the war before people actually believed the IDF that they should move South. Once they did that civilian deaths dropped dramatically.
So I don't think it's in the early stages, although this ceasefire is going to restart some elements, which is unfortunate.
Hamas needs to surrender - everything they do makes life worse for Palestinians.
I don't think Hamas is structured in a way that is able surrender, especially now that its "political" wing has totally lost whatever diplomatic or local credibility it had. It only took one month for the coalition to destroy Saddam's regime but it took eight years in all to overcome the random violence and isolated terrorist resistance. Some really bad things happened during the latter part and that's what did the most damage to America.
You may be right. I can't find exact statistics, but I saw a few sites giving numbers of 20,000 - 30,000 (for Afghanistan). The rate of children being killed in Gaza however is far more.
A quick Googling doesn't find me a counter-estimate from Israel. Given the very clear evidence of large scale bombardment of the Gaza Strip (Israel claims 6,000 bombs dropped, and Hamas is known for favoring populated areas; https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip...), counts in the thousands seem very plausible.
They've already botched major events, like the death toll from PIJ's accidental strike on Al-Ahli Hospital. There's also an ongoing concern about "Gaza Health's" practice of including Hamas fighters in civilian death tolls. They're the best numbers we have or are going to get, so they can't be ignore, but their reliability is probably not a good hill to die on.
Israel's had its own counting issues. It's a challenging enough task with a functioning government and control over the area, let alone an area with more than an a million evacuees going in various directions. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip...
I don't doubt they include Hamas fighters, but I do doubt that Israel's targeting has been so effective and precise the deaths are mostly Hamas. US intelligence estimates 20-25k Hamas members (https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hamas_fto.html); I don't think half of them are likely to have been already taken out.
Afghanistan child deaths: 26,000 vs 5,500 in Gaza (according to Hamas).