One thing Hezbollah's latest stupidity has done is to highlight the difference in scoring the MSM has used depending on whose "civilians" are targeted.
For example, when Israelis are targeting Hezbollah's brave civilian-garbed warriors in Lebanon, the Hezbollah deaths are lumped in with "innocent" civilians. For those unfamiliar with MSM scorebook rules, those deaths are debited against Israel as a "bad score" for Israel, and favors Hezbollah.
On the other hand, then Hezbollah tosses 120 missiles loaded with ball bearings willy-nilly into Israel, at no particular target and civilians are hit without an Israeli soldier near, those deaths are credited to Hezbollah's side as a "good score" for Hezbollah and is bad for Israel.
Similarly, in Iraq, while the US was an occupying force in Iraq, each US death was a "bad score" for the US and favored the "militants". Each civilian Iraqi death was also a "bad score" for the US, because civilian casualties were presumed "collateral" to US operations.
Since Iraq's elected government took charge, each US death continued to be a "bad score" for the US and Iraq as before (no surprise here). Further, each additional Iraqi policeman, soldier or member of the government is another "bad score. But there is more. Suddenly, in addition Iraqui government personnel, each Iraqi civilian casualty purposely targeted and killed by "insurgants" is also a "bad score" for the US, even if it is a brutal, execution style murder.
In the Israeli Hezbollah conflict, deaths on both sides are layed at the feet of Israel even though their rules of engagement for the most part comport with International Law and Hezbollah's rules do not. In Iraq, any death is the fault of the US, even though it is no longer (until recently asked by Iraq to help in Baghdad)conducting military operations.
This sure seems perverse to me. I wonder if Victor David Hanson has run into this phenomenon in his studies of the history of warfare.
What’s in a political name?
1 hour ago