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 7)
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 
on Aug 03, 2006
I'm not blaming anyone for everything. Inconveniently for you.
on Aug 03, 2006
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.


Evidently your memory fails you. There were rocket attacks on Israel in 1981, and open fighting between the PLO there and Israel. The PLO had become entrenched and grown sufficiently to start attacking Israel, they had modern artillery and rockets at that time. The Abu Nidal "faction" in the form of Fatah was just a different verse of the same song.

As usual, you put on your blinders and pretend that the whole invasion was about the assassination attempt, just like this is just supposedly only about 2 kidnapped soldiers. It shouldn't matter to Israel that there is an entire movement devoted to their destruction attacking them sporadically. They should only react in proportion to the most recent attack.

Bullshit, frankly. If that were the case then Hezbollah could kill one random Israeli at will with nothing to fear but losing one of their own. Given the philospophical mess that is fundamentalist Islam, they could kill a substantial amount of the Israeli population before they ran out of idiots willing to die for the antisemitic cause.

No, no nation should, or would be bound by such a idiotic ideal. It just means that so long as your enemy is willing to sacrifice his life, he's free to kill who he wants on your side with nothing to lose but his own life. Are those the kind of people you want to skew the system to favor?
on Aug 03, 2006
"There were rocket attacks on Israel in 1981"

Key words there are the final two.

Uri Avnery seems to think that:

"For eleven months before the war, not a single Katyusha rocket (nor a single shot) had been fired over the border."

But what would he know, he was there at the time.

Abu Nidal split from the PLO in 1974.

Wrong on both points. Well done.
on Aug 03, 2006
"Wrong on both points. Well done."


Because you say so? LOL, who the fuck are you, frankly. Uri Avnery hates those he opposes within Israel with as much or more venom as the terrorists. He spends most of his time spewing ANTI-Israel propaganda to further his leftist, anti-orthodox agenda. Again, you take the most radical perspective on a situation because it suits your agenda.

As for Abu Nidal, they are all split from each other. Maybe next week they won't be. Maybe next week they'll still be split and yet offer each other tactical aid in accomplishing a shared goal. You're patently dishonest, because you can't be that ignorant.

Me, and my brother, and my cousin against the stranger. Arafat claimed he had no control over attacks and factions he was later found to have bankrolled. You just prefer to accept the lies of terrorists out of your irrational pro-terrorism biases.

(Yep, that's what I said. I have come to the conclusion that all the anti-violence temperance in your yap is just show. I think it is obvious that you see terrorism as valid "resistance", since you always seem to characterize violent opposition to it as equal in morality.)
on Aug 03, 2006
"Uri Avnery hates those he opposes within Israel with as much or more venom as the terrorists. He spends most of his time spewing ANTI-Israel propaganda to further his leftist, anti-orthodox agenda. Again, you take the most radical perspective on a situation because it suits your agenda"

Well, you can call him what you want, but I notice that you don't dispute his statement about eleven months.

"As for Abu Nidal, they are all split from each other. Maybe next week they won't be. Maybe next week they'll still be split and yet offer each other tactical aid in accomplishing a shared goal. You're patently dishonest, because you can't be that ignorant."

Abu Nidal split off in 1974 and made himself the lap dog of various Arab leaders. Relations with Arafat were some way short of cordial. Haven't you ever seen Life of Brian?

"I think it is obvious that you see terrorism as valid "resistance", since you always seem to characterize violent opposition to it as equal in morality.)"

Yes, sometimes I see what you call "terrorism" as valid resistance, mostly I do not. But the real difference between you and I, is that I do not use the term "terrorist" as a full stop. I want to know why people take up arms.
on Aug 03, 2006
The cease fire was in effect for 11 months, and according to the Israeli side of the argument it was violated hundreds of times, always by someone "unaffiliated" with those who'd signed on. Very convenient, eh? That's what they do, they sign peace treaties, spin off their militant "wings", and then shrug apologetically when the attacks continue. Later, the militant wings become political, they sign a new peace treaty and the process starts again.

I didn't bother addressing the 11 months because as always you'll just insist what happened didn't happen. Why bother?
on Aug 03, 2006
"they sign peace treaties, spin off their militant "wings", and then shrug apologetically when the attacks continue."

You're viewing the Palestinians as one homogeneous mass of incurable "terrorists". In nearly every conflict of this sort, one group cuts a deal and another group damns them as "sell-outs". Like Yigal Amir.
on Aug 03, 2006
...and you are viewing Palestine as though they are somehow the only place in the world where you can believe what a politician says. I'm not talking about "palestinians", I'm talking about diverse terrorist groups with a common goal. Somehow Hezbollah can happily share armament with Hamas, yet we're supposed to believe that splinter PLO groups can't hide their coordination with one another for the benefit of political posturing.

You simply refuse to see the convenience in disavowing yourself from a 'wing', while secretly supporting everything they do. You should be able to understand it, considering such a maneuver always seems to placate people like yourself. Arafat wept crocodile tears and said he wished he could do something about the attacks he cut checks to fund, and folks like you ate it up.
on Aug 03, 2006
You're viewing the Palestinians as one homogeneous mass of incurable "terrorists". In nearly every conflict of this sort, one group cuts a deal and another group damns them as "sell-outs". Like Yigal Amir.


The Arabs become quite homogenous when it comes to how they feel about the Zionists.

What happened to Yigal Amir, by the way? And the Kahane movement?
on Aug 03, 2006
"You simply refuse to see the convenience in disavowing yourself from a 'wing', while secretly supporting everything they do. You should be able to understand it, considering such a maneuver always seems to placate people like yourself. Arafat wept crocodile tears and said he wished he could do something about the attacks he cut checks to fund, and folks like you ate it up."

I don't refuse to see the convenience, I refuse to see the ubiquity. What you seem to be saying is that every time a "terrorist" group splits, it's a tactic. It's not that simple.

"The Arabs become quite homogenous when it comes to how they feel about the Zionists."

I have been to Palestine and seen Palestinians argue amongst themselves about Israel. Though obviously, this must have been just a show for the gulible westerners, because God forbid that Arabs might be people like me and you, with opinions and thoughts and dreams of their own.
on Aug 03, 2006
"I don't refuse to see the convenience, I refuse to see the ubiquity. What you seem to be saying is that every time a "terrorist" group splits, it's a tactic. It's not that simple."


And your knack of taking everything you see from terrorists at face value, but digging between the lines and second guessing the Israeli perspective is why people perceive you as they do.

"I have been to Palestine and seen Palestinians argue amongst themselves about Israel. Though obviously, this must have been just a show for the gulible westerners, because God forbid that Arabs might be people like me and you, with opinions and thoughts and dreams of their own."


Again, you shift from talking about terrorists to talking about "Palestinians". Unless you spent a lot of time with terrorists, I'm not sure how those opinions really effect the politics between terrorist organizations. Half the 'sell out' stuff is a show to effect those same man-on-the-street opinions.

I was fortunate enough to go to a college that got a lot of kids from the middle east from all walks of life. I was there during the first gulf war, and while I got a myriad of opinions regarding most topics, I can tell you there was very little in the way of diversity in terms of Israel.
on Aug 03, 2006
I have been to Palestine and seen Palestinians argue amongst themselves about Israel. Though obviously, this must have been just a show for the gulible westerners, because God forbid that Arabs might be people like me and you, with opinions and thoughts and dreams of their own.


And I've been to Egypt and I saw for myself how unified the Egyptians were, both secular and pious Moslem, in their disdain for Israel and peace with that country. It's amazing how what you claim to have seen with your eyes isn't born out in anything larger than an argument you witnessed, given the diversity of thought, which you witnessed first-hand, in the region. A couple months ago we saw a gang war between Hamas and Fatah. What happened to that little war? I saw firsthand the differences between ZAPU and ZANU, but that take away from the homogeneity in their hatred of us.

Like I told Cactoblasta before, I don't give a flying fuck about whether they like a Mickey Mouse shirt and pizza, or a hijab and falafel. That has no meaning in anything more than a esoteric, "good for Trivial Pursuit" factoid. What matters to me is their views that affect policies that deal with the outside world.
on Aug 03, 2006
Again, you shift from talking about terrorists to talking about "Palestinians".


Actually, he shifted from talking about "Arabs" to talking about "Palestinians." You are the one who seems to think that "Arab" = "terrorist".

GP--who are you referring to when you talk about their hatred toward "us"? Who is the us? Israel? or the US? (I'm serioulsy just looking for clarification).
on Aug 03, 2006
"Actually, he shifted from talking about "Arabs" to talking about "Palestinians." You are the one who seems to think that "Arab" = "terrorist"."


If you want to explain how you come to that conclusion, I'd appreciate it. Sounds more like the average holier-than-thou doublespeak your side of the conversation tosses haphazardly as a catch-all when they are at a loss for words.
on Aug 03, 2006

If you want to explain how you come to that conclusion, I'd appreciate it. Sounds more like the average holier-than-thou doublespeak your side of the conversation tosses haphazardly as a catch-all when they are at a loss for words.


Because you didn't pay attention.

"I have been to Palestine and seen Palestinians argue amongst themselves about Israel. Though obviously, this must have been just a show for the gulible westerners, because God forbid that Arabs might be people like me and you, with opinions and thoughts and dreams of their own."


He said Arabs, "you" on the other hand specified terrorists.

Again, you shift from talking about terrorists to talking about "Palestinians". Unless you spent a lot of time with terrorists, I'm not sure how those opinions really effect the politics between terrorist organizations. Half the 'sell out' stuff is a show to effect those same man-on-the-street opinions.
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8