It was always a bare minimum, baseline number. Always, and obviously always.
Yep, very true.
And weâll probably never know the exact number of people who died, given the ongoing assault on gaza, and the inability to pull up bodies under buildings right nowâŚ
I remember during the Iraq war how wildly different the body count estimates were depending on the source and their methodologies. For example an independent organization called âIraq Body Countâ was widely cited as a reputable source by the press, but they only tallied up specific, identifiable deaths that were reported in certain news agencies and official sources. There were other groups such as researchers from Johns Hopkins who did surveys and extrapolated their data in statistical models, ending up with much, much higher numbers. And I think that the statistical approach, if done right, is probably more accurate, especially in the more chaotic war zones without a well functioning health system or press. One important factor is that there are many kinds of war-related deaths that arenât the direct result of violence. Increases in fatal car accidents (because traffic rules are often disregarded in war zones), increases in preventable deaths from chronic conditions because medication is in short supply, women giving birth away from medical centers, etc etc.
So if and when a high-quality survey is conducted down the line Iâm sure it will indicate a much higher number. And just like when that was done in Iraq, detractors and war apologists will dismiss the results as propaganda.
So is Starmer, for other reasons.
so much garbage sitting at the top of our world, spewing their garbage views, and never facing any consequences for being garbage humans.
TL;DR: yes; yes; yes; yes; there are other words for it, but yes.
How he died, where, and why?
Are they really that clueless?
I didnât read it as clueless.
I read it as âSAY IT ASSHOLE! SAY IT!â
ETA