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 6)
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8 
on Aug 02, 2006
So tell me BakerStreet, how does it feel to lose an argument to an effete, brainwashed, hate-filled anti-Semite like myself?


Actually "you" seem to be the only one that thinks that. That you won the the arguement that is.
on Aug 02, 2006
lol... couldn't have described it better. It's easy to vilify your opposition as insulting if you only use your own definition of insulting. People who complain about insults never see the vast majority of their own. That's why people like Al Gore stay so confused as to why, when they are always SO polite, they come off as caustic. Most people see through the facade and realize that you can hide behind "reason" and manners and still be just as insulting and rude.
on Aug 02, 2006
Oh no, I'm sorry, I lost that argument crushingly. Around the time of your Irish history lesson, which I for one found fascinating.
on Aug 02, 2006
wankers.
on Aug 02, 2006
Th adopt the debate style of Baker:

He is seemingly confirming all the stereotypes of the American in the modern world, namely that the best way to solve a problem is to bomb the crap out of it, overturn it by force and kill everyone that gets in the way. He seems ignorant of the issues and history involved in conflicts and bulldozes his way through any opposition with insults, personal attacks and shouting.

What I have done in adopting the style is to actually forget the argument at hand and just concentrate on the person I am arguing with, thereby throwing out any opinion he may have on the basis of who he is, not what he is saying...
on Aug 02, 2006
Israel is just plain wrong here. Those nasty Jews have no right to use military force against people who invade their country, kill and/or kidnap their citizens, and fire thousands of rockets into their country!

They should just stick to diplomatic talks with the government of the country that allows these terrorists to control the Southern part of their country and eventually there will be a solution that doesn't involve military action.

Those damned Jews have no right to defend their borders or launch military action against any armed force that chooses to attack them and then hide behind the innocent civilians that voted some of those terrorists into government office!

Eventually diplomatic talks will solve the problem without any need for those nasty Jews to fire a shot. There shouldn't be more than a few hundred Jews killed during those talks so what's the big deal?
on Aug 03, 2006
Mason,

No need to use terms like "nasty Jews". You'll have the anti-Semitism police on your back
on Aug 03, 2006
But, what about the rockets that were fired into Israel MONTHLY by the peaceful Hezbullah? Do those numbers count? Or do they not fit into your "peaceful" world-view?

Oh, and those rockets I am referring to....those are BEFORE Hezbullah became "active" 3 weeks ago
on Aug 03, 2006
No, Mino, this isn't ABOUT Hezbollah. This is about Israel. If it were about the threats to Israel you'd have a lot more numbers, like all the people killed in all the other past attacks on Israel, the number of rockets that Hezbollah is providing to groups in Gaza, the cost in money and psychological welfare that the constant threat of Hezbollah has on the civilian population of Israel, etc.

I'm not saying that it anti-Semitic, but it is obviously anti-Israel bias because it omits so much that promotes violent response. It's just another blog that tries to see this one event in a vacuum, ignoring the culpability of the Lebanese civilians and the constant, harrowing threat that Israelis have to be sick of living under. It isn't about facts or numbers, it's about making a point by masking as many facts and numbers as are necessary.
on Aug 03, 2006
ok, Bakerstreet....haha...forgive my use of common sense, then ...OG, carry on....
on Aug 03, 2006
MythicalMino,

"But, what about the rockets that were fired into Israel MONTHLY by the peaceful Hezbullah? Do those numbers count? Or do they not fit into your "peaceful" world-view?"

What about all the Lebanese who died as a result of the Israeli invasion of 1982? Do they count too? How far back would you like to go?

In Ireland we have what is known as the politics of whatabout-ery, which you have just demonstrated beautifully. You point to your dead and I respond by pointing to my dead and saying "what about them?" Except in this case, the dead aren't "ours".
on Aug 03, 2006
You can't point to an issue and conveniently leave out the reasons behnd it.

As I recall the 1982 situation was a response to terrorist attacks being carried out against Israel by the PLO from Lebanon. Seems there's a pattern here. Terrorists carry out attacks against Israel and Israel defends itself by seeking to destroy the terrorists.
on Aug 03, 2006
Your memory fails you, Mason.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was "in response" to the attempted murder of the Israeli ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal faction which was not part of the PLO.
on Aug 03, 2006
but then are "conveniently" blamed for everything....there is an equation here, OG, you are just leaving out the variables that give the answer
on Aug 03, 2006
and, by what you are saying....I could just...walk into your house, beat the crap out of you and your loved ones...shoot anyone i want, take anything I want....and YOU would be the one that is wrong to do anything about it? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense....
8 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8