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 8)
8 PagesFirst 6 7 8 
on Aug 03, 2006
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).


This is a response to this sentence I wrote:

I saw firsthand the differences between ZAPU and ZANU, but that take away from the homogeneity in their hatred of us.


I forgot to qualify that with "In Rhodesia" at the beginning of the sentence. ZAPU was a Matabele group led by Joshua Nkomo, who has an army called ZIPRA. ZANU, with it's armed forces called ZANLA, was a Shona group led by the terrorist extradordinaire, Robert Mugabe. "Us" would be white Rhodesians and those blacks who fought and died with us.
on Aug 04, 2006
"He said Arabs, "you" on the other hand specified terrorists."


I know, that's what I don't get. I was talking about terrorists, he starts saying that Arabs feel this way and that way, and yet somehow I am the one likening Arabs to terrorists? To me it sounded an awful lot like he was saying he had insight into the minds of terrorists by listening to "arabs" argue with one another.

As far as I am concerned, as I said above, the average man-on-the-street in Palestine is as much a tool for their government's propaganda as we are here. If OG San would like to pose it as though hearing the average Palestinian is like hearing the average terrorist, fine, but don't pin that 'arab=terrorist' crap on me. Like I said, I went to school with a lot of Middle Eastern kids, and their ideas about Israel were basically homogeneous, but I know full well that they don't originate those ideas themselves, any more than we originate our own.
on Aug 04, 2006
"I know, that's what I don't get. I was talking about terrorists, he starts saying that Arabs feel this way and that way, and yet somehow I am the one likening Arabs to terrorists? To me it sounded an awful lot like he was saying he had insight into the minds of terrorists by listening to "arabs" argue with one another."

My last comment was in two parts. In the first part, I addressed your point about "terrorist" groups splitting.

In the second part I addressed Good Point's point about Arab attitudes to Israel. My use of quotations made this distinction clear.

He said "Arabs", I said "Palestinians" (who are Arabs), then he mentioned Egyptians (who are also Arabs).
on Aug 04, 2006

I forgot to qualify that with "In Rhodesia" at the beginning of the sentence. ZAPU was a Matabele group led by Joshua Nkomo, who has an army called ZIPRA. ZANU, with it's armed forces called ZANLA, was a Shona group led by the terrorist extradordinaire, Robert Mugabe. "Us" would be white Rhodesians and those blacks who fought and died with us.


Sorry about that--clearly my reading comprehension wasn't up to par on that one Thanks for the clarification.
on Aug 04, 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


Baker--I'm seldom at a loss for words--I would have thought you'd know that by now

However, I am willing to concede that you may have been confused by the fact that OG was actually responding to someone elses comments rather than your own.
8 PagesFirst 6 7 8