As I did already say, I’m trying to prove that the casualty data as presented in the article gives the incorrect impression that “by contrast” the battle in Gaza is unusually dangerous for civilians by comparing absolute numbers of daily casualties to those from a battle for a much smaller city which actually involved killing a larger fraction of that city’s civilians. The article is overall shallow, low-effort, and misleading.
The article might be low-effort, but you’re not putting much more effort either. I was hoping there was something behind all those numbera but no, it’s more or less "Stalin killed more people how bad Hitler could be?”. Thanks for your contribution.
You didn’t answer my question: what were you trying to prove?
As I did already say, I’m trying to prove that the casualty data as presented in the article gives the incorrect impression that “by contrast” the battle in Gaza is unusually dangerous for civilians by comparing absolute numbers of daily casualties to those from a battle for a much smaller city which actually involved killing a larger fraction of that city’s civilians. The article is overall shallow, low-effort, and misleading.
The article might be low-effort, but you’re not putting much more effort either. I was hoping there was something behind all those numbera but no, it’s more or less "Stalin killed more people how bad Hitler could be?”. Thanks for your contribution.