[Pants-of-dog]

Then show that the additional deaths from the West Bank are mathematically significant.

And there seems to be no disagreement with the “opinion letter” and its claims. No one has said that the argument made in the letter is wrong. Is the letter wrong?

[wat0n]

Is the letter right?

The letter is just unverifiable speculation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since there is no claim that the letter is wrong, we can assume that the logic and evidence are sound.

And it is easily verifiable. The studies upon which it is based are all peer reviewed. The current death toll is based on confirmed deaths of recovered bodies, with a paper trail for verification.

Science seems to indicate that the IDF is killing tens of thousands of kids.

[wat0n]

The studies also show a wide range of the ratio of indirect to direct deaths, as claimed in the letter. So why pick one specific ratio and how has it been verified at all?

Again, unverifiable speculation from a non-peer reviewed guesstimate. I thought @Pants-of-dog did not like unverifiable speculation and thus tended to just disregard it.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is always a degree of certainty in scientific claims. The lack of perfect certainty is not a refutation of scientific evidence. It is merely an acknowledgment of the limitations of making claims about the empirical world.

[wat0n]

Funny because none of that shows that the letter is not just speculating. Indeed, even the authors admit it in the letter itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

By that logic, all hypotheses are speculation. Which is different from unverifiable speculation.

This can and is being verified.

To dismiss it as unverified speculation betrays a lack of knowledge about how we gather knowledge.

——————

Today we have yet another attack on a school being used as a refugee shelter. This attack killed six humanitarian aid workers.

This is not the first attack on the school, nor is it the most fatal attack on the school.

As usual, the IDF claimed Hamas was using it as a command and control centre.

As usual, the dead included women and children but no Hamas members, nor was there any evidence that Hamas has set up a base there since the last attack.

This attack was so flagrantly in violation of international law that even Germany has condemned it.

——————

Also, Hamas has signalled an acceptance of a deal proposed by the US for an immediate ceasefire.

[wat0n]

By that logic, all hypotheses are speculation. Which is different from unverifiable speculation.

This can and is being verified.

To dismiss it as unverified speculation betrays a lack of knowledge about how we gather knowledge.

Weird, because that's exactly your own standard.

It seems unverified speculation is good only when you engage in it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Incorrectly accusing me of an error in order to claim I am a hypocrite is not a good argument. It is merely a combination of a strawman and a tu quoque fallacy.

This school bombing is a good example of my previous argument that bombing buildings is an ineffective tactic.

If bombing the school/refugee shelter were an effective means to get rid of the supposed Hamas base in the school, then why does it need to be bombed over and over again? Obviously, the first four times it was bombed were unable to stop Hamas from having a base there. Why is the fifth time supposed to work?

[wat0n]

Probably because the school is not destroyed, and Hamas' members keep going back as it is still used as a shelter.

I am not incorrectly accusing you of anything, whining about "unverified speculation" is a favorite tactic of yours to disregard actual peer reviewed evidence you don't like.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no point asking anyone in this thread for evidence that Hamas was there.

We know this because there is no evidence at all for this claim.

And it seems that everyine agrees that bombing is ineffective. It is ineffective because “the school is not destroyed, and Hamas' members keep going back as it is still used as a shelter” and yet the IDF keep doing this ineffective tactic that kills civilians and aid workers but there is no evidence that it has any military advantage or that any Hamas members were killed.

[wat0n]

Are you sure? That depends also on who's killed.

Israel claims it killed Qassam members with plenty of experience and with some level of commanding responsibilities.

This in turn erodes Hamas' and the Palestinian armed groups' fighting capabilities and I think it's quite clear that has been the case looking at the overall effects of the war on them.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence that any militants were killed.

The people brought to emergency medical care were all civilians.

And so any military advantage seems speculative , and can not be verified since there is no evidence.

Also, if we assume Hamas was actually there, the logical conclusion is that the last four attacks were incapable of reducing the command structure enough to stop Hamas from infiltrating the refugee shelter yet again.

[wat0n]

Israel claims some of those killed were militants, and published their names.

It's interesting how Israeli attacks seemingly never kill Hamas' militants yet its military capabilities have clearly eroded.

I find it odd you also reject speculation now, but not in a non peer reviewed letter.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the IDF and Israeli government made that claim

They also provided absolutely no evidence.

And the military capabilities of Hamas do not seem eroded at all since they have seemingly been able to take over that refugee shelter five times now.

[wat0n]

Hamas' military capabilities have certainly been eroded given the losses it has taken and that it is not able to launch as many rockets into Israel as it used to. That does not mean its capabilities have been completely destroyed.

As for the evidence, it should be easy to corroborate if the people the IDF named are among the dead or not.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then show the names of the Hamas militants supposedly killed.

And show that they died.

This will probably not happen.

And Hamas’s military capabilities are not ebing eroded enough to stop them from retaking refugee shelters over and over again.

Or, more likely, Hamas was never there and this attack had nothing to do with Hamas,

[wat0n]

The IDF said that it had identified nine Hamas operatives killed in the strike, three of whom were also UNRWA staffers.

They were named as Ayser Qardaya, a member of Hamas’s internal security force; Muhammad Adnan Abu Zaid, a members of Hamas’s military wing who launched mortars at troops, and a UNRWA staffer; Bassem Majed Shahin, the commander of a Hamas military wing cell, who participated in the October 7 onslaught; Omar al-Judaili, a member of Hamas’s military wing and internal security force; Akram Saber al-Ghalidi, a member of Hamas’s military wing and internal security force; Muhammad Issa Abu al-Amir, a member of Hamas’s military wing who participated in the October 7 onslaught; Sharif Salam, a member of Hamas’s military wing; Yasser Ibrahim Abu Sharar, a member of Hamas’s military wing and emergency committee in Nuseirat, as well as a UNRWA staffer; and Iyad Matar, a member of Hamas’s military wing and a UNRWA staffer.

There you go, those 9 are the people Israel targeted.

Are they in the list of people killed in the attack? This is something that the Gaza MoH could confirm.

Did Israel have credible intelligence that they were there? Hard to know and it's not like they'll make it public while fighting is still raging.

Hamas' capabilities have degraded but that doesn't mean they have been completely dismantled. So yes, its capabilities have not been eroded enough, which is why the war is still ongoing. That's a tautology, what's your point?

[Pants-of-dog]

The UNRWA workers were not on the previous list of supposed Hamas militants provided by the IDF and Israeli government. This idea that they were Hamas militants seems to have come about after the bombing.

Moreover, there is no evidence that any of these UNRWA workers were Hamas militants.

And most importantly, they were not fulfilling any combat role at the time of the attack. They were, instead, providing humanitarian aid to war refugees displaced by the IDF and Israeli government.

And yes, this needs to be compared to the list of dead from the MoH. Please let me know when that is done.

And we seem to agree that bombing refugee shelters is an ineffective tactic since one of the world's best armies has been unable to significantly prevent the movements of a bunch of poorly supplied irregular forces for almost a year.

At the same time, the Israeli government is trying to pass three laws: one to label Unrwa as a terrorist organisation, another to remove all immunities from Unrwa staff and a third to deny Unrwa access to buildings under Israel’s control.

In this context, the attack looks more like an attack on UNRWA than an attack on Hamas.

[wat0n]

I will note that the list of UNRWA workers provided by Israel was never claimed to be exhaustive.

The UNRWA itself fired some workers who they suspected were affiliated to Hamas or other armed groups after the UN inquiry.

Being a commander is, in fact, a continuous combat function.

The rest sounds more like speculation and can thus be ignored.