>anyone who has spent even a modicum of time becoming informed on the topic
WHO, UN and other entities furthest away from being "politically tinged" consider the numbers "credible", "accurate", "reliable". I guarantee you what you are doing is very clear also, parroting literal propaganda points. And it's awful to see discussions on specific numbers numbers when any single loss of life is tragic.
>New York-based Human Rights Watch also says the casualty figures have generally been reliable, and that it has not found big discrepancies in its verification of past strikes on Gaza.
>"Those numbers are in line with what one might expect, given what we're seeing on the ground through testimony, through satellite imagery and otherwise," he told Reuters.
WHO, UN and other entities furthest away from being "politically tinged" consider the numbers "credible", "accurate", "reliable". I guarantee you what you are doing is very clear also, parroting literal propaganda points. And it's awful to see discussions on specific numbers numbers when any single loss of life is tragic.
>New York-based Human Rights Watch also says the casualty figures have generally been reliable, and that it has not found big discrepancies in its verification of past strikes on Gaza.
>"Those numbers are in line with what one might expect, given what we're seeing on the ground through testimony, through satellite imagery and otherwise," he told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-dou...
https://www.emro.who.int/images/stories/palestine/WHO_oPt_Si...