• TheLameSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    4 months ago

    How much of that is because there just aren’t as many left for them to kill? If they started out at non-combatant numbers above SIXTY PERCENT that means they were killing more women and children than anyone else…

    Eventually that pesky problem of killing non-combatants just fixes itself when there’s none left to kill, doesn’t it?

    • TaTTe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I also feel the need to remind people that while most combatants are male, not even close to all males are combatants. If only women and children (probably almost all civilian) made up 60% of all deaths, then the remaining 40% includes all male civilian deaths, which very well could be higher than combatant deaths.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes. Much like the US has done for a long time in their occupations in the Middle East, their little brother Israel calls any male deaths of fighting age “combatant” deaths.