By contrast, US-led coalition air and artillery strikes killed fewer than 20 civilians per day, on average, during the four-month offensive to drive IS out of the Syrian city of Raqqa in 2017, according to Amnesty International. It is unclear how many civilians lived there at the time, but UN officials estimated that there were between 50,000 and 100,000.
There are more than two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza so 300 people a day dying in Gaza is a smaller fraction of the population than 20 people a day dying in Raqqa.
And an Associated Press investigation suggested that between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians were killed in the nine-month battle between US-backed Iraqi forces and IS for the Iraqi city of Mosul which ended in 2017.
This amounts to an estimated fewer-than-40 civilian deaths per day, on average. Mosul had an estimated population of less than two million people when IS captured the city in 2014.
This, on the other hand, is a remarkably low number of casualties compared to Raqqa. About 0.5% of the civilian population dead compared to somewhere between 2.5% and 5%. Why was Mosul so much less bloody than Raqqa, given that those battles were fought by similar armies at about the same time? Is the current conflict an outlier compared to them? By the numbers, it’s more dangerous for civilians than Mosul but less than Raqqa.
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.
There are more than two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza so 300 people a day dying in Gaza is a smaller fraction of the population than 20 people a day dying in Raqqa.
This, on the other hand, is a remarkably low number of casualties compared to Raqqa. About 0.5% of the civilian population dead compared to somewhere between 2.5% and 5%. Why was Mosul so much less bloody than Raqqa, given that those battles were fought by similar armies at about the same time? Is the current conflict an outlier compared to them? By the numbers, it’s more dangerous for civilians than Mosul but less than Raqqa.
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.