Not sure that’s entirely a “lie”. The figures I’ve seen used have been approx 1200 killed on the day. Don’t remember them specifically saying civilians.
Your figure above doesn’t include foreign victims, military victims and those missing which would give a total of 1144 - a 5% mistake.
I’m quite sure that Nutter-yahoo has lied about lots but not sure this is the thing to call him out on.
Apologies - failure to read properly, your figure does include foreign victims but it is not the total number killed that day (which is mine above).
As the Israelis “military” victims figure includes off duty personnel who might have been at the festival or visiting family I’m not sure what your point is.
As I said above:
A) I’ve not seen people talking about 1200 civilians killed, rather 1200 people killed which is only 5% out and therefore a reasonable (imo) figure to have been using until there was an exact number.
B) I don’t think this is something to get too worked up about when the Idf have admitted shooting three of their own hostages in a breach of their own rules of engagement and other egregious acts have been caught on camera.
Maybe you find this shocking, I think this sort of estimate of casualties is understandable in the chaos of the atrocity. What is less understandable is some of their actions since when they have had time to organise and plan.
Jim - my main point is toward the general theme of misinformation. If I take the most charitable approach and don’t distinguish between military/civilian deaths or friendly fire, the first figure published was an exaggeration by 20%. That’s not a small miss. You may chalk this up as being due to hasty reporting but I’m not ignorant to the old truth of lies being half way around the world before the truth has its shoes on. Do you know how many times I still read people recite the “40 beheaded babies” claim. (You and I have previously discussed this and you’ve provided links to a few journalist who claim to have seen footage of a beheaded body but the 40 claims are now widely debunked).
The 40 claim is clearly (and I believe widely accepted as) bollox.
20% error is nothing for the initial claim of casualties . It is not unusual or new for such figures to drop significantly as more data comes about. It certainly doesn’t suggest deliberate exaggeration to me.
Have you ever read Long Dark TeaTime of the Soul by Douglas Adams - he uses this exact phenomenon in the explosion at the airport?
I think there is bound to have been misinformation (from both sides obvs)- some of it (as explained in your article) accidental while I am sure some will be deliberate. However, my only point is I don’t think this is unreasonable in the slightest and there are much more serious issues to get worked up about.
Obviously we disagree about this (as ever!) so I’ll leave it there and hope you have a happy Saturday.
most of the error was simply that hamas fighters who died were counted, until they were l7er id’d
while i have little doubt the idf r v selective in the in4mation they dissemin7, they have a tendency 2 b reasonably candid which implies gr7er honesty: eg admitting v quickly that they killed 3 hostages.
but this whole thread is a v weird take. so cos actually it might have been fewer deaths somehow that makes hamas’s mass rape and torture of civilians ok does it gorlami? that’s a bit like saying hamas’s stats of palestinian civilian deaths is clearly massively exagger7ed, there4 wot the idf is doing is absolutely fine. ie, total bollox
TOOD, I think you're being way too generous. There are examples of the IDF flat out staging events to be filmed and reported on by tame journalists and the extent of the lying is almost Putinesque.
These things are expected in war. The issue is when lies are used to cover up war crimes which may well be happening.
TOOD - I’m not going to reply to your straw man points. My 15.06 explains the point I’m making here. Jim understood it perfectly well. If you can’t, that’s on you.
rr - i don’t disagree, but the q here is whether there has been lying about the body count of the 7 october terrorist attack
there is nothing 2 suggest lying. in fact, the ‘errors’ in the figures have been accounted 4 quite readily by the hamas militant bodies and the israeli security services/idf deaths during the attack. that’s b4 even allowing 4 jim’s point about an acceptable margin 4 error
so it’s a v weird 1 2 call out as “israel’s” and “lies”, compared 2 other examples, but even more so in the context of the purported lie
gorlami can stutter and splutter about straw men, but use of “israel” and the example given is a pretty ugly set of choices by him. he has history on here of bad faith and suspicious misreading of other ppl’s posts
the point is that whether the final 7 october body count is 200, 500 or 700 or woteva, it’s still a barbaric terrorist atrocity and “israel” doesn’t need 2 lie about that - just as the deaths of thousands of palestinians (irrespective of the accuracy of hamas’s figures) is an appalling use of military 4ce and indic7ive of a failure of the idf 2 look 2 minimise civilian casualties, as well as potentially being a war crime of its own. and no amount of arguing hamas is lying will change that
so i will happily ask gorlami repeatedly y he is trying 2 accuse “israel” of “lies” on the subject of 7 october, knowing that he will attempt 2 avoid answering
No argument on the specific point and I take care to say IDF rather than Israel in the same way I wouldn't want people to assume all Brits are gammony racist brexiters.
When I refer to Israel in the context of this genocide, more often than not (and as was abundantly clear from the thread title) I’m referring to the Government of Israel. Most people on here (TOOD being a notable exception) are bright enough to understand that. It’s exactly the same thing as when I refer to the role that Britain played in the historical conflict (e.g. the Balfour declaration etc) - I’m not referring to the British people but to the British Government. TOOD is evidently trying to paint me as an anti-Semite to discredit my views.
When I mean the IDF, I’ll say the IDF. But the IDF are not responsible for policy making or the accuracy of reporting information about the victims of 7 October.
the trouble is, antisemites do use it as a dogwhistle 4 antisemitism - so u can blame me all u like, but if u persist in using terms and phraseology that others use nefariously, it’s ur fault, not mine
i’ll give u the benefit of the doubt here. but b more careful. u’ve already been repeatedly careless on this thread alone
TOOD - you don’t get to control what terms I use. No matter how much you want to drag this into being a religious conflict, I’m not taking the bait. You only dilute the impact of the term when you throw it around like confetti as part of a bad faith strategy to silence anti-Zionist views.
1
0
Not sure that’s entirely a “lie”. The figures I’ve seen used have been approx 1200 killed on the day. Don’t remember them specifically saying civilians.
Your figure above doesn’t include foreign victims, military victims and those missing which would give a total of 1144 - a 5% mistake.
I’m quite sure that Nutter-yahoo has lied about lots but not sure this is the thing to call him out on.
0
0
I specifically said civilians (which excludes military victims by definition) and the 766 does include international civilians
0
0
Apologies - failure to read properly, your figure does include foreign victims but it is not the total number killed that day (which is mine above).
As the Israelis “military” victims figure includes off duty personnel who might have been at the festival or visiting family I’m not sure what your point is.
As I said above:
A) I’ve not seen people talking about 1200 civilians killed, rather 1200 people killed which is only 5% out and therefore a reasonable (imo) figure to have been using until there was an exact number.
B) I don’t think this is something to get too worked up about when the Idf have admitted shooting three of their own hostages in a breach of their own rules of engagement and other egregious acts have been caught on camera.
Maybe you find this shocking, I think this sort of estimate of casualties is understandable in the chaos of the atrocity. What is less understandable is some of their actions since when they have had time to organise and plan.
2
1
Jim - my main point is toward the general theme of misinformation. If I take the most charitable approach and don’t distinguish between military/civilian deaths or friendly fire, the first figure published was an exaggeration by 20%. That’s not a small miss. You may chalk this up as being due to hasty reporting but I’m not ignorant to the old truth of lies being half way around the world before the truth has its shoes on. Do you know how many times I still read people recite the “40 beheaded babies” claim. (You and I have previously discussed this and you’ve provided links to a few journalist who claim to have seen footage of a beheaded body but the 40 claims are now widely debunked).
1
0
The 40 claim is clearly (and I believe widely accepted as) bollox.
20% error is nothing for the initial claim of casualties . It is not unusual or new for such figures to drop significantly as more data comes about. It certainly doesn’t suggest deliberate exaggeration to me.
Have you ever read Long Dark TeaTime of the Soul by Douglas Adams - he uses this exact phenomenon in the explosion at the airport?
I think there is bound to have been misinformation (from both sides obvs)- some of it (as explained in your article) accidental while I am sure some will be deliberate. However, my only point is I don’t think this is unreasonable in the slightest and there are much more serious issues to get worked up about.
Obviously we disagree about this (as ever!) so I’ll leave it there and hope you have a happy Saturday.
1
0
No, I haven’t but I enjoyed THGttG so I’ll add it to the list. Thanks
2
0
Best to start with Dirk Gently’s Holisitic Detective Agency first to introduce his character but not vital as it’s not really a sequel.
0
0
most of the error was simply that hamas fighters who died were counted, until they were l7er id’d
while i have little doubt the idf r v selective in the in4mation they dissemin7, they have a tendency 2 b reasonably candid which implies gr7er honesty: eg admitting v quickly that they killed 3 hostages.
but this whole thread is a v weird take. so cos actually it might have been fewer deaths somehow that makes hamas’s mass rape and torture of civilians ok does it gorlami? that’s a bit like saying hamas’s stats of palestinian civilian deaths is clearly massively exagger7ed, there4 wot the idf is doing is absolutely fine. ie, total bollox
0
0
TOOD - be a good chap and read my 15:06 again please. All the answers you need are there.
0
0
ur 15.06 deals with precisely none of the points, including:
ur weird take that fewer deaths is somehow a bad thing or impacts upon the horrors of the hamas terrorist atrocity
1ce again, u appear incapable of basic reading/comprehension
1
0
Try once more. Try really hard though this time. Use your finger on the screen if you need to. You can do it, I know you can.
0
0
heh
not even an attempt 2 explain urself.
unsurprising. i would say disappointing, but given ur history of dishonesty and inabikity 2 read i guess it’s just par 4 the course
0
0
TOOD, I think you're being way too generous. There are examples of the IDF flat out staging events to be filmed and reported on by tame journalists and the extent of the lying is almost Putinesque.
These things are expected in war. The issue is when lies are used to cover up war crimes which may well be happening.
0
1
TOOD - I’m not going to reply to your straw man points. My 15.06 explains the point I’m making here. Jim understood it perfectly well. If you can’t, that’s on you.
2
0
rr - i don’t disagree, but the q here is whether there has been lying about the body count of the 7 october terrorist attack
there is nothing 2 suggest lying. in fact, the ‘errors’ in the figures have been accounted 4 quite readily by the hamas militant bodies and the israeli security services/idf deaths during the attack. that’s b4 even allowing 4 jim’s point about an acceptable margin 4 error
so it’s a v weird 1 2 call out as “israel’s” and “lies”, compared 2 other examples, but even more so in the context of the purported lie
gorlami can stutter and splutter about straw men, but use of “israel” and the example given is a pretty ugly set of choices by him. he has history on here of bad faith and suspicious misreading of other ppl’s posts
the point is that whether the final 7 october body count is 200, 500 or 700 or woteva, it’s still a barbaric terrorist atrocity and “israel” doesn’t need 2 lie about that - just as the deaths of thousands of palestinians (irrespective of the accuracy of hamas’s figures) is an appalling use of military 4ce and indic7ive of a failure of the idf 2 look 2 minimise civilian casualties, as well as potentially being a war crime of its own. and no amount of arguing hamas is lying will change that
so i will happily ask gorlami repeatedly y he is trying 2 accuse “israel” of “lies” on the subject of 7 october, knowing that he will attempt 2 avoid answering
3
0
No argument on the specific point and I take care to say IDF rather than Israel in the same way I wouldn't want people to assume all Brits are gammony racist brexiters.
0
0
yeah i agree ur appropri7ly conscientious on those delic7 areas
2
0
When I refer to Israel in the context of this genocide, more often than not (and as was abundantly clear from the thread title) I’m referring to the Government of Israel. Most people on here (TOOD being a notable exception) are bright enough to understand that. It’s exactly the same thing as when I refer to the role that Britain played in the historical conflict (e.g. the Balfour declaration etc) - I’m not referring to the British people but to the British Government. TOOD is evidently trying to paint me as an anti-Semite to discredit my views.
When I mean the IDF, I’ll say the IDF. But the IDF are not responsible for policy making or the accuracy of reporting information about the victims of 7 October.
0
0
the trouble is, antisemites do use it as a dogwhistle 4 antisemitism - so u can blame me all u like, but if u persist in using terms and phraseology that others use nefariously, it’s ur fault, not mine
i’ll give u the benefit of the doubt here. but b more careful. u’ve already been repeatedly careless on this thread alone
2
0
TOOD - you don’t get to control what terms I use. No matter how much you want to drag this into being a religious conflict, I’m not taking the bait. You only dilute the impact of the term when you throw it around like confetti as part of a bad faith strategy to silence anti-Zionist views.
Join the discussion