US vs. Israeli occupation.

[specious_reasons]

In this thread,

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870210764
"Loony Sunni's Attack Well Armed Convoy...Then Complain of Harsh Response"

Skeptic said,

Anyone ELSE sees the rather interesting similarity to palestinian claims of "israeli massacres" here?

My response was,

Does the Israeli Army normally declare more casualities/kills than the Palestinians do?

Otherwise, yes, there are similarities. One similarity is that a visibly identifiable army is involved in a conflict with not so clearly identifiable enemy. The risk for civilian casualties increase.

One big difference was that the US convoy wasn't targetting Iraqis, the US convoy was attacked first, and the US returned fire.

Come to think of it, there's not a whole lot of similarity, and you're letting your biases show again, Skeptic.

(edited for references in other thread)

Skeptic's response:

Well, then! After all, the main complaint against the israeli army is that it "kills civlians" and "not respecting human rights".

We all know the drill, don't we? The arab nations will now call for a special session of the UN Security Council; the council obeys and passes a resolution condemning the USA for using "excessive force"; demands that it stop the "occupation of Iraq"; claims the US troops fighting back only "perpetuates the cycle of violence"; formally declares that "Americanism is racism", etc., etc., etc.

For some reason, that isn't happening.

Strange.

One big difference was that the US convoy wasn't targetting Iraqis, the US convoy was attacked first, and the US returned fire.

Which, of course, is very often the case with the israeli army, as well.

Of course, I don't recall much outrage when the American army DOES attack first or destroys terrorists' houses--as it did a week or two ago in reprisal for the bombings of its bases--either.

Remember the huge bruhahaha the last time israel did the same?

Of course, there IS one difference (so far): at least the Iraqis complaining are not inventing the casualties out of thin air, like the palestinian claims about a "massacre" in Jenin, for example, where (among other fairy tales) israeli tanks supposedly "destroyed" hospital buildings which never existed in the first place, or "ran over" an equally imaginary Palestinian baby...

I don't think the parallel fits as well as Skeptic is drawing it, especially for the conflict in question.

I, personally, think the biggest difference between the two occupations is the US makes no claims on Iraqi land. Similarity in details aside, Gulf War II is an entirely different conflict.

 

[Grammatron]

In this thread,

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870210764
"Loony Sunni's Attack Well Armed Convoy...Then Complain of Harsh Response"

<snip>


I, personally, think the biggest difference between the two occupations is the US makes no claims on Iraqi land. Similarity in details aside, Gulf War II is an entirely different conflict.

I think it's a "yes and no" thing. While USA makes no claims on Iraq, not everyone in Iraq think so. I'm not sure how many are fighting because they hate US and how many are fighting because they think US is trying to take over Iraq. If the latter is a major issue than perhaps there is not much difference in that area. But it's similar to my comment on that thread, that when we remove the insurgents we don't build a compound over their houses and put a bunch of American civilians in there.