And if, in fact, there aren't 150,000 phantom dead Gazans, will you reconsider a single word you've said on the subject?
Replies
sure if that were the case. Which it won't be.
sep 3, 2025, 12:48 am • 7 0 • view
My fucking god, man.
sep 3, 2025, 12:50 am • 10 0 • view
"phantom"
sep 3, 2025, 12:50 am • 10 0 • view
That specific word just really tied this up with the most disgusting bow you can imagine
sep 3, 2025, 12:51 am • 9 0 • view
I think rather more telling is when he says even 200,000 would be "consistent with attritional warfare." Like, I rather suspect there is *no* level of Palestinian casulties that he would view as unacceptable.
sep 3, 2025, 7:24 am • 2 0 • view
there will be and you'll have to live the rest of your life having said something like this
sep 3, 2025, 12:48 am • 23 0 • view
Well given that even the GHM is saying 65k, it'll be a surprise. But still consistent with an attrition war in a city. Now answer the question. If that speculated death count is wrong, what will you reconsider?
sep 3, 2025, 12:50 am • 0 0 • view
The GHM only counts violent deaths from israeli military action.
sep 3, 2025, 12:52 am • 4 0 • view
Also, worth noting, that number makes up 3% of gaza's pre-'war' population 3 out of every 100 gazans, killed by israeli military actions, as verified by a shattered bureaucracy also getting regularly bombed. The total deaths count is undoubtedly well into the hundreds of thousands
sep 3, 2025, 1:01 am • 7 0 • view
the GHM is counting verifiable deaths. Gaza is a famine-plagued hellhole. I am not the one risking my credibility here
sep 3, 2025, 12:52 am • 17 0 • view
So you're saying there were not, in fact, 200,000 verifiable deaths. And that you are pulling 200k out of speculation.
sep 3, 2025, 12:55 am • 0 0 • view
fix your soul or die
sep 3, 2025, 12:55 am • 16 0 • view
I'll take that as a "no" on the "reconsider" question
sep 3, 2025, 12:56 am • 0 0 • view
Killing "only" 1 in 40 Gazans rather than 1 in 10 is not a difference that I would consider exculpatory.
sep 3, 2025, 1:23 am • 4 1 • view
Estimating death tolls accurately is actually pretty important for a whole list of reasons when trying to take stock of a genocide, and while I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that there are a good number of unknown/unconfirmed deaths at the moment, assuming it's 3 for every 1 known death,
sep 3, 2025, 2:32 am • 1 0 • view
and then telling people to "fix your soul or die" if they disagree with that estimate, isn't productive. It's just creating an emotional cudgel to use against people who disagree with you. And again: that just isn't productive.
sep 3, 2025, 2:32 am • 1 0 • view
I mean, I'm actually sympathetic both to the idea that the higher-end estimates might be more correct, and that the precise number isn't terribly relevant or exculpatory here. But yeah, insisting that anyone who doesn't go with the maximum should "fix thier soul" is absurd.
sep 3, 2025, 7:53 am • 0 0 • view
*That said*, given some of Mr. Oafpillmil's *other* comments on this subject, I'm not sure how much benefit of the doubt he should be given.
sep 3, 2025, 7:55 am • 2 0 • view
I think it's *somewhat* better, but not much better. Also, from his later comment, he seems to think even 200,000 would be acceptable.
sep 3, 2025, 7:19 am • 1 0 • view