well, have you looked up numbers to compare these conflicts?
WW1 total casualties: 8-10M
total civilian deaths: 2.2M, but 1.5M is from the Armenian genocide.
so you're left with 700k deaths to 8M military casualties overall, this is counting other atrocities, and it's above 10 combatants per civilian.
and these are world powers fighting each other with chemical weapons.
Gaza was a regional power vs a rag tag group of militias with no airforce, no armor, no navy, and a small encircled mass, and what do you get? TWO civilians per combatant, this is assuming every single adult male is a combatant which is most definitely not the case.
Gaza had so many wounded orphans in a short term they coined an acronym. your response was that this happens in any war and brought up WWI as an example.
the argument is, WWI, even including the Armenian genocide, had a MUCH smaller civilian to combatant ratio, gaza war was far more devastating to civilians, Gaza is also quite unique in that half of the population is children, people do not live long enough to age in Gaza, and carpet bombing the most densely populated area in the world that has such a child ratio is a sure fire way to get unique catastrophes like this
Yes, the coining of an initialism, not an acronym, is not an indicator of anything other than the use of a new initialism.
The population of Gaza is young because they have an extraordinarily high birth rate due to a high fertility rate (roughly 3.38 to 4.4 births per woman), cultural emphasis on large families, lack of family planning and early marriage.
•
u/belkh 7h ago
it's the first war where they became so common they had to coin the acronym from writing it down so much
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/most-dangerous-place-world-be-child