Fatalities in Crips War: 1300
Given that the Crips have been responsible for several murders over many years, given that their leaders continue to threaten violence, they were finally brought to submission in 2002 by an incursion of the US military into Crip territory. Approximately 5600 people living in Los Angeles were injured and 1300 killed in the bombing and military strike.
Californians and Angelenos considered this an unfortunate but acceptable loss. What else could they say? They couldn't argue against the United States defending itself and taking action to stop a group of killers.
Is that an unfair analogy to the 2008-2009 Gaza-Israel Conflict? As of Jan 19, 2009, Wikipedia authors estimate 5600 injuries and 1300 fatalities total on both sides of the conflict since late Dec 2008. I don't know how many people have been killed by LA gangs in one year, but I'd guess 36 in one year sounds within their ability.
"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend." -- article from The Jerusalem Post dated Jan 4, 2009 (Updated Jan 5, 2009).
What would you think if your city or county or state or federal government tried to protect or defend you with this many civilian casualties? Would you be more worried about the gangs or the military killing you? Would it be acceptable if the Israeli military killed that many people within Israel to stop an equivalent threat? Does the borderline make it different?
A big difference between these two situations is that Israelis don't see Palestinian civilians as their neighbors or fellow "countrymen". By comparison, Californians and Americans would feel they were attacking "themselves" if there were so many civilian casualties in their own community. (--Assuming that they identify strongly with the government claiming to represent them and with the people getting attacked.)
Californians and Angelenos considered this an unfortunate but acceptable loss. What else could they say? They couldn't argue against the United States defending itself and taking action to stop a group of killers.
Is that an unfair analogy to the 2008-2009 Gaza-Israel Conflict? As of Jan 19, 2009, Wikipedia authors estimate 5600 injuries and 1300 fatalities total on both sides of the conflict since late Dec 2008. I don't know how many people have been killed by LA gangs in one year, but I'd guess 36 in one year sounds within their ability.
"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend." -- article from The Jerusalem Post dated Jan 4, 2009 (Updated Jan 5, 2009).
What would you think if your city or county or state or federal government tried to protect or defend you with this many civilian casualties? Would you be more worried about the gangs or the military killing you? Would it be acceptable if the Israeli military killed that many people within Israel to stop an equivalent threat? Does the borderline make it different?
A big difference between these two situations is that Israelis don't see Palestinian civilians as their neighbors or fellow "countrymen". By comparison, Californians and Americans would feel they were attacking "themselves" if there were so many civilian casualties in their own community. (--Assuming that they identify strongly with the government claiming to represent them and with the people getting attacked.)
posted by Robert T. Northrup @ 1/19/2009 01:34:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home