Iraq had well over 10 times the population (26-27 million) and the war lasted about 10 years.
"Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation"[pubmed] put the figure at about 132,000 war related deaths. "Iraq body count" was about 158,000. Taking the highest figure that's about 0.6% of the population over the 10 years.
I think the estimates for Gaza, with a population of about 2.2 million, are between 70 to 75,000. That's over 3% of the population over 2 years.
So on a 'per year' basis for % of population - that's 0.06% for Iraq versus 1.6% for Gaza.
Some groups do put the figures above 1 million.[0]
> I think the estimates for Gaza, with a population of about 2.2 million, are between 70 to 75,000.
Keep in mind these figures are not civilian casualty figures, they are overall casualty figures.
Data quality issues do make comparisons rather tricky. Generally you would also want to compare against similar battles that have mainly urban conflict rather than a war in a large country where the amount of fighting varied much more.
In any case looking at raw casualty numbers doesn't really give one the best picture by itself, analyzing combatant to civilian death ratios is probably better than population death ratios as that gives you a better idea at how careful parties are at reducing civilian casualties. Unfortunately Hamas also uses tactics that are designed to increase civilian casualties as well which further complicates comparative analysis.
80% of ORB's estimated deaths came from four central governorates (completely excluding 3 altogether), and the mortality responses in those areas had major internal inconsistencies. The conclusion of peer-reviewed critique is that the ORB mortality data were not credible.
That said, if someone is going to make a contentious claim, referencing the evidence or using some data to work up a basic attempt to substantiate the claim is the only to look like you aren't just making up claims.
If data just on deaths is varying by a whole factor of 10, I can't see how you could possibly get anywhere near any meaningful figure for 'combatant to civilian death ratios' in Iraq. You're adding another layer ontop of data that you already recognise is hugely flawed.
Add to that the issue that, in Gaza, Israel has completely sealed off the area from international observers, so credible data on "combatant to civilian death ratios" just won't exist.
All I can say is that based on the data, the claim made is absolutely not supported by the evidence. [Edit - even if the million figure were credible, it's still at least double, and actually indicating the opposite of what was claimed]
> 80% of ORB's estimated deaths came from four central governorates (completely excluding 3 altogether), and the mortality responses in those areas had major internal inconsistencies. The conclusion of peer-reviewed critique is that the ORB mortality data were not credible.
Yeah, I'm not sure how credible it is, I only pointed that one out since you were comparing generally upper range estimates with other upper range estimates.
> I can't see how you could possibly get anywhere near any meaningful figure for 'combatant to civilian death ratios' in Iraq.
I mean, it's the figure that I think matters the most. I agree it's probably also one of the most difficult figures to accurately determine.
> Add to that the issue that, in Gaza, Israel has completely sealed off the area from international observers, so credible data on "combatant to civilian death ratios" just won't exist.
International observers can't operate in Gaza without what is effectively the consent of Hamas. Hamas deliberately doesn't properly differentiate civilian deaths from combatant deaths so it seems not particularly likely that international observers could get accurate data on combatant to civilian death ratios if they are being watched by Hamas.
> All I can say is that based on the data, the claim made is absolutely not supported by the evidence. [Edit - even if the million figure were credible, it's still at least double, and actually indicating the opposite of what was claimed]
Overall deaths is not really the figure I would focus on regardless.
I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of.
In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza.
If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes.
The UN Human Rights Office described the restriction as lasting more than 18 months by June 2025, with only a few IDF-controlled visits.
The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters.
> I'm just going to remind you here that you're arguing with me about my figures that I threw together to question a claim someone else made out of thin air, which it largely did, and your main point of contention is that I should be using data that nobody can get hold of.
I guess my point was more just that one should be careful with these sort of comparisons, because even if you have accurate data you can still be simply measuring the wrong thing entirely. Raw death counts can be useful as part of the analysis, but they also don't tell the entire story.
> In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza.
It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas.
> If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes.
Outcomes that Israel would probably get blamed for even if the fault was entirely due to Hamas. It's a no-win scenario.
Keep in mind I'm not neccesarially saying Israel's making the best decisions here, I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth.
> The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters.
What countries allow reporters unimpeded/uncontrolled access to war zones? I don't think Ukraine does and I don't think any of the gulf coast countries attacked by Iran were allowing free reporting either. I would think it's not very many as the security reasons alone are highly problematic.
I'm simply challenging obvious bullshit with back of the fag packet numbers.
Please note, you have said nothing about the bullshit claim, you instead are going after me challenging the bullshit by using actual data.
You can argue about how it's used, but it's absolutely sufficient to demonstrate the claim is nonsense.
If you want to evidence the unsupported (out of thin air) claim, please by all means go ahead. I encourage people to connect their claims to reality.
>It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas.
Interestingly, that's another claim for which you have provided no evidence.
>What countries asks reporters unimpeded/ uncontrolled access to war zones?
Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list.
>I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth.
Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them.
I'm starting to find it difficult to take things you say in good faith.
But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?
> Interestingly, that's another claim for which you have provided no evidence.
Isn't this just common sense?
> Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list.
No country AFAIU allows entirely unimpeded access to war zones for international observers/journalists.
> Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them.
No, I'm just saying you can't always expect using international observers/journalists to get to the truth to be a realistic strategy depending on the situation. OSINT and other reporting is also useful.
> But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?
I said I was a British citizen among a couple others, I did not grow up in the UK, I grew up in the US. I am also not a citizen of the country I was born in either.
Common sense is the ability to make practical, reasonable judgments in ordinary situations using basic experience. Basic experience would be establishing this happens first.
>No, I'm just saying you can't always expect using international observers/journalists to get to the truth to be a realistic strategy depending on the situation.
Okay, so whose statements are you trusting more on what's going on with the Ughurs? <The Chinese government> or <anyone who is not the Chinese government>.
I think it's fairly apparent that you aren't British (except by passport), and it's likely you are digesting largely US news sources. When you said you were British, I assumed you were claiming that what you identified as, but perhaps that itself is a British colloquialism.
I'm going to stop responding here. I'm sure you're a decent person, and you think you think you are seeing the other side.
> Common sense is the ability to make practical, reasonable judgments in ordinary situations using basic experience. Basic experience would be establishing this happens first.
I mean, there's plenty of reports by journalists confirming Hamas restricts access/press freedom, often using threats.[0]
> Okay, so whose statements are you trusting more on what's going on with the Ughurs? <The Chinese government> or <anyone who is not the Chinese government>.
Probably those that are not the Chinese government, but one would still take into account information the Chinese government puts out as well while factoring in their obvious bias.
> I think it's fairly apparent that you aren't British (except by passport)
I mean, having a British passport means you are British by definition I think.
> it's likely you are digesting largely US news sources.
I try to get my news from a diverse range of sources.
> When you said you were British, I assumed you were claiming that what you identified as
I mean, the reason I have multiple passports is because my family background is very diverse, one of my parents was born in the UK but that parent also had one of their parents born in a different country as well, so likewise my own identity has a high level of diversity.
> but perhaps that itself is a British colloquialism.
Yeah, technically my other passports are from countries that were historically controlled by the British at some points in time, although that's probably a fairly large percentage of the countries in the world.
