Bilal Barakat 🍉 on Nostr: To answer your literal question, the "benchmark" conflicts that were analysed are: ...
To answer your literal question, the "benchmark" conflicts that were analysed are:
»Kosovo, 1998–99;
Iraq, 2003–07;
Northern Uganda, 2005;
Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1998–2002;
Congo-Brazzaville, Pool Region, 2003;
Burundi, 1993–2003;
Sierra Leone, 1991–2002;
Darfur, Sudan, 2003–05;
South Sudan, 1999–2005;
Angola, 1975–2002;
Liberia, 1989–96;
East Timor, 1974–99;
Iraq, 1991 war«
You decide for yourself.
To answer the implied (?) question: I’m not making a point about whether the numeric value of 4 is appropriately conservative, I'm making a point about the structure of their argument, which amounts to: our figure should be seen as conservative because they took the *average* (!) ratio, but the situation in Gaza is obviously worse than average.
For reasons I'll get to in a moment, that is less robust than making the estimate conservative by actually taking the most consevrative ratio observed (excluding the 0 from Kosovo that they argue is a statistical artefact).
It's instructive to examine their reasoning for why the ratio was comparatively low in Darfur of all places. The point they make is that the ratio can be pushed â‹…lowerâ‹… if the violence is particularly â‹…intenseâ‹…! If this seems counterintuitive, note that a situation can be worse in a way that leads to more â‹…directâ‹… deaths. You can't die a delayed indirect death if you already got killed immediately.
Thinking of Gaza, if Israel “only” killed their parents, more kids might starve because no-one is providing for them. But if the whole family including children got wiped out when a 2,000 pound bomb is dropped on their tent, the small children get killed directly rather than indirectly. If patients in a hospital, instead of dying indirectly because of a lack of medication, are executed point blank in the yard, deaths that would otherwise have been indirect are direct instead. And so on.
So it's not actually that self-evident that the RATIO should be higher than average in Gaza, precisely â‹…becauseâ‹… the violence resulting in direct deaths is so intense.
»Kosovo, 1998–99;
Iraq, 2003–07;
Northern Uganda, 2005;
Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1998–2002;
Congo-Brazzaville, Pool Region, 2003;
Burundi, 1993–2003;
Sierra Leone, 1991–2002;
Darfur, Sudan, 2003–05;
South Sudan, 1999–2005;
Angola, 1975–2002;
Liberia, 1989–96;
East Timor, 1974–99;
Iraq, 1991 war«
You decide for yourself.
To answer the implied (?) question: I’m not making a point about whether the numeric value of 4 is appropriately conservative, I'm making a point about the structure of their argument, which amounts to: our figure should be seen as conservative because they took the *average* (!) ratio, but the situation in Gaza is obviously worse than average.
For reasons I'll get to in a moment, that is less robust than making the estimate conservative by actually taking the most consevrative ratio observed (excluding the 0 from Kosovo that they argue is a statistical artefact).
It's instructive to examine their reasoning for why the ratio was comparatively low in Darfur of all places. The point they make is that the ratio can be pushed â‹…lowerâ‹… if the violence is particularly â‹…intenseâ‹…! If this seems counterintuitive, note that a situation can be worse in a way that leads to more â‹…directâ‹… deaths. You can't die a delayed indirect death if you already got killed immediately.
Thinking of Gaza, if Israel “only” killed their parents, more kids might starve because no-one is providing for them. But if the whole family including children got wiped out when a 2,000 pound bomb is dropped on their tent, the small children get killed directly rather than indirectly. If patients in a hospital, instead of dying indirectly because of a lack of medication, are executed point blank in the yard, deaths that would otherwise have been indirect are direct instead. And so on.
So it's not actually that self-evident that the RATIO should be higher than average in Gaza, precisely â‹…becauseâ‹… the violence resulting in direct deaths is so intense.