O G San O G San

Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

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.
45,887 views 110 replies
Reply #76 Top
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.
Reply #77 Top
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.
Reply #78 Top
Oh no, I'm sorry, I lost that argument crushingly. Around the time of your Irish history lesson, which I for one found fascinating.
Reply #80 Top
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...
Reply #81 Top
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?
Reply #82 Top
Mason,

No need to use terms like "nasty Jews". You'll have the anti-Semitism police on your back
Reply #83 Top
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
Reply #84 Top
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.
Reply #85 Top
ok, Bakerstreet....haha...forgive my use of common sense, then ...OG, carry on....
Reply #86 Top
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".
Reply #87 Top
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.
Reply #88 Top
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.
Reply #89 Top
but then are "conveniently" blamed for everything....there is an equation here, OG, you are just leaving out the variables that give the answer
Reply #90 Top
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....
Reply #91 Top
I'm not blaming anyone for everything. Inconveniently for you.
Reply #92 Top
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?
Reply #93 Top
"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.
Reply #94 Top
"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.)
Reply #95 Top
"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.
Reply #96 Top
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?
Reply #97 Top
"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.
Reply #98 Top
...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.
Reply #99 Top
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?
Reply #100 Top
"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.