Published on July 26, 2006 By O G San In International
Two weeks into the latest conflict in the Middle East, the casualty figures make interesting reading. US-sponsored Israel has sent 422 Lebanese to an early grave while Hezbollah (brought to you by Iran and Syria) has killed 42 people.

In other words, the Jewish state, armed and backed by the world’s richest country, has maintained a ten-to-one kill ratio in the first fortnight of fighting. This disparity in human suffering is the single defining characteristic of this war and must be acknowledged in any honest commentary on the conflict.

But the bald figures tell only half the story. Of the 42 people killed by Hezbollah, 24 (57%) were soldiers and 18 (43%) civilians. This relatively low per centage of civilian casualties seems strange. The Shia militia makes no distinction between an Israeli soldier and an Israeli child - they are both Zionist occupiers of Muslim land. The Party of God has demonstrated no qualms about taking innocent life.

So, the fact that more than half the Israeli dead were soldiers is probably a result of military rather than moral considerations. Obviously, Hezbollah’s guerrilla war against the IDF in southern Lebanon has been more effective than the hundreds of Kaytushas it has fired on northern Israel.

What then of the IDF’s pattern of killing? Well, unlike Hezbollah, Israel’s military proudly boasts that it is the most moral army in the world, that no other fighting force on the planet goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Logically then, you would expect the Israeli army to have killed significantly fewer civilians proportionally than Hezbollah.

Not so. Of the 422 people killed by the most moral army in the world, 27 were Hezbollah, 20 were Lebanese soldiers and 375 - a whopping 88% - were civilians. All these numbers can get a bit confusing so let me distil them all into one sentence: Israel has killed more than twice as many civilians as a per centagethan Hezbollah.

Remind me again who the good guys are.

Comments (Page 5)
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Aug 01, 2006
"I would rather deal with someone who uses insults over people who ask "meaningful" leading questions over and over with no intention of ever really addressing the answers"

surely the point of a discussion or debate is to ask questions form differing opinions in order to find the answer. It is not about barnstorming in to state your "answer" without first listening to the question and range of opinion.

I have found this website is full of people who accuse those who do not have the answers, and thereby discount anything they have to say or ask in order to get closer to an answer.

Everyone can give an answer but it is no good if it is the wrong answer
on Aug 01, 2006
"surely the point of a discussion or debate is to ask questions form differing opinions in order to find the answer."


As opposed to asking them, ignoring the answers, and them asking them again and again everywhere possible. People consider it socratic, but that method generally requires that the questions lead to an obvious answer.

Our pet current-events moralists are too pig-ignorant to realize that the answers they envision aren't as obvious as they think. So, when they ask and get a handful of answers they don't like, which are just as valid as theirs, they just ignore them, or deride them and ask the question again.

OG San can't seem to comprehend the idea that anyone could sanction the death of a few hundred Lebanese as a sad, but necessary tragedy. So the assumption is all you have to do is show the numbers and people will be outraged. That works with brainwashed anti-semites and ethics-over-reality "thinkers", but people who understand the necessity of protecting one's own nation don't see it all that cut-and-dried.

To get the "right" answers, you have to share OG San's values, and evidently they aren't universal.
on Aug 01, 2006
Everyone can give an answer but it is no good if it is the wrong answer


That's not true. You can learn a lot from wrong answers. Sure it may be that people are pigheaded and generally immune to your style of persuasion, but isn't that a valuable lesson?
on Aug 01, 2006
"You can learn a lot from wrong answers."


You MIGHT even learn that there AREN'T any wrong answers, and that all the moral grandstanding and waving of the bloody shirt relies on assumptions that benefit no one.
on Aug 01, 2006
Come on people...its true that lebanon suffers more then the israeli's but the primary objective is hezbollah and only hezbollah and this disgusting anti-semite comments between the lines "by most moral army in the world" its just scary that there are people that so hateful and foolish like who wrote this article...

When this war overs, "hezbollah", the people who spread the terror around the world with other organizations, don't gonna have the same power like before the war.
and second of all, BarkStreet is right, lebonon let this people "to be" and when they kidnapping soldiers and bombing our cities and villages in the north and we fight back we turning out to be the "bad-guy".

Bottom line - Lebanon are hostages of hezbollah and that so we can't not to hurt them to accpomplish peace in the area of Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Believe me, I'm a Citizen of Israel and im not zionist or a religious man but I believe in peace.
on Aug 01, 2006
hello, meg. i wanted to join the legion of name-callers, but some of these tools are just too experienced at it.
on Aug 01, 2006
I don't think OG or anyone else was saying that Hezbollah are right in what they did, or that Israel are wrong to have been "upset" at what happened, I think its more to do with the methods that have been employed in the fighting that is going on now, that has escalated the suffering on both sides of the border.

As OG said earlier, just because you have the right provication to take action does not justify everything that then constitutes that action and the results.
on Aug 01, 2006
hello, meg. i wanted to join the legion of name-callers, but some of these tools are just too experienced at it.


Oh, I'm sure you could hold your own--but I'm also sure you've got better things to do to occupy your time (like gaze at your navel).

Where are you these days?
on Aug 01, 2006
BakerStreet,

"I'm so bored with self-important left wingers who think that there is such a difference between insulting arrogance and effete, nasal sarcasm. I would rather deal with someone who uses insults over people who ask "meaningful" leading questions over and over with no intention of ever really addressing the answers"

I asked a question over and over because none of the pro-Israeli contributors on this thread, yourself included, would answer it. Eventually you did, though not very politely.

Which leads me on to my next point, your poor manners. What is the point of debating? Well, some would say that it is to change your opponent's mind. This may be true in some instances, but I think it's pretty clear that neither of us are going to change our minds about this issue.

But it's still possible that the undecided observer of this debate might be won over by the power of either person's arguments. You are less likely to persuade someone that you are in the right if you are unable to debate in a reasonable manner.

I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of good conservative writers on this website, and you would be on that list. But though your articles are good, when the comments start you frequently let yourself down by getting angry and flinging insults.
on Aug 01, 2006
Maxis20,

"this disgusting anti-semite comments between the lines "by most moral army in the world" its just scary that there are people that so hateful and foolish like who wrote this article..."

So it's anti-Semitic, hateful and foolish of me to quote Israeli propaganda? I'm confused. Perhaps I'm a self-hating anti-Semite.

"When this war overs, "hezbollah", the people who spread the terror around the world with other organizations, don't gonna have the same power like before the war."

Damn right. They're going to have a lot more power unfortunately.
on Aug 01, 2006
Your problem, OG San, is that you differentiate in quality between "angry and flinging results" and the snide, effete sarcasm and rhetorical laments for "reason". You weigh tone by content, not intent unfortunately, and can't see that the average Lefty/quasi-Liberal stance is laced with just as much that is insulting or arrogant. It's just veiled in different language that you no longer have the objectivity to recognize.

Again, perhaps it is uncouth, but I prefer jabs out in the open, rather than in the 'old lady' format where the opposing parties sit with their backs to each other, making pointed comments as if the other person wasn't in the room. As someone blinded by living in 'the world's richest country' remind me again who the good guys are for each conflict, mmkay?
on Aug 01, 2006
OK, I've been perusing this thread and it has had the effect of depressing me to no end. It seems that it is only when people start dying all over the place in a region that you can go to a thread such as this one and discover to a certain degree why the planet is just so messed up. I mean it seems to me that some of the illustrious commentators here are nowhere personally affected by the events in Israel and Lebanon, and yet you wouldn't know it given the amount of venom being spewed. I can't imagine how it must feel for those who have lost family, friends, jobs and limbs of their own. I figure that when what you write reveals more about yourself than the actual topic at hand, it's time to stop. You know who you are.

By the way, hello Megan and Soupy
on Aug 01, 2006
"I can't imagine how it must feel for those who have lost family, friends, jobs and limbs of their own."


No, granted, I can't really tell you how either side feels. I can, though, sympathize with Israel to a point.

I know what it was like on 9/11 to see Palestinians dancing with joy in the street, and to hear people talk about how we asked for it. So when Hezbollah and tools of Hamas violate Israel's border, kill and kidnap their soldiers, and everyone in the world says they should lay down and take it because the situation is "complex"... I can form my own opinion based upon my own experience.

I feel for Palestinians and Lebanese a great deal, too, because as a student of history I see how indigenous peoples are grist for the mill. I see how their issues are manipulated and how their hate can be wielded by one international interest against another, resulting eventually in their destruction. So while I sympathize, I don't believe tolerating the hate that evil people use to manipulate them is in their best interest. When they choose the terrorists who ruin their lives to lead them, anything I can do to promote the eventual demise of said terrorists is in their best interest.

OG San is of the belief that you can reason out of people what wasn't reasoned in. You can't. Irrational, gut-level hate can't be conquered at a peace summit or during a 50 year cease fire. The cause for peace is lost, totally, until the engine of hate is expunged from their lives, just like from Nazi Germany, and just like from WW2 era Japan. The problem is the real engines of hate don't reside in Palestine or Lebanon, they live in Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc.

They are going to be addressed, though. Bank on it. In the process a LOT of people are going to die. It is sad, but that's the way history plays out in these circumstances.
on Aug 02, 2006
I would agree with Zena's point and add that it is very easy for us sitting in England, Americs or wherever to debate the point and say that this is right, or that is wrong but it would be so different if we were in Israel or in Lebanon and actually experiencing the fighting, the bombing, the death.

It is too easy for us to say that negotiation is the way to go, but we don't know how that has to be implemented on the ground, or for us to say "bomb the lot of them, that'll sort it" without having to see the dead carried out of buildings and mourn for the loss of a child.

I will probably be labelled a bleeding heart here, but if that is due to me trying to see it from the point of view of the people involved in this tragedy, then my heart is quite happy to bleed away
on Aug 02, 2006
BakerStreet,

"Your problem, OG San, is that you differentiate in quality between "angry and flinging results" and the snide, effete sarcasm and rhetorical laments for "reason"."

Yes, how rude of me to try to introduce reason into the discussion. Perhaps it would be better if I acted like you and left reason untouched, going instead for insults, out-of-date statistics and false attribution of quotes.

And yes, I am being sarcastic. In fact I'm being sarcastic in an effete manner - one hand is typing, the other is held in the air with the wrist limp.

So tell me BakerStreet, how does it feel to lose an argument to an effete, brainwashed, hate-filled anti-Semite like myself?
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last