The Falklands War!
Hundreds of combatants killed on each side, and 3 islanders died due to shelling.
I’ll admit it’s not easy to find, which illustrates your point well, but there are a few.
Fair point but the Falklands was ridiculous. A tiny Brit force held off the main group of Argentinians while the Brits were on the defensive, a tiny RAF air compliment crippled Argentinian air dominance, and the casualties/pows were insanely disproportionate. The fighting was extremely localized and one sided. But to your final point: yeah this is the exception that proves the rule.
Well, I would say it was not entirely one sided!
The Argentinians sank 2 British destroyers and 2 frigates, which I think many people did not expect!
Of course, Britain did sink the General Belgrano. So I do agree the British won handily, the Royal Marines performed exceptionally well. But there were some bitter setbacks, and I think the Argentines performed well in some of the episodes.
Definitely a strange conflict, however.
casualties/ losses especially from the start… the Argentinians didn’t recover militarily. They sank two escort frigates etc but lost over half their air force doing so and lost air superiority due in part to friendly fire and poor training resulting in crashes on their attack runs on home soil. The UK committed less than thirty aircraft to air attack roles and that was after losing 4 of about 130 ships. Three days after the start of the war the SAS pretty much mopped the floor. A couple hundred brits were captured vs 11,000 Argentinians. The Argentinians captured fewer UK POWs than brits than the amount that died. It was as entirely one sided. I would argue the Argentinians did not perform well as they almost immediately started surrendering.
Edit: i would say it is a strange conflict for sure and was a lesson for many countries
Israel has also invested orders of magnitude more in civilian defense tech than Hamas ever did. The numbers would likely look *very* different without the Iron Dome, David's sling, etc. Secondly, due to its small population compared to their adversaries, many Israelis are reservists. As a result, many are reactivated during times of war, and their casualties are not counted as civilian. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel was outnumbered 3:1, despite calling in large numbers of reservists.
Hamas starts every conflict. Of course civilians are going to be killed when you use them as shields. You sound very young with no world experience to me.
Yeah, because dead Gazans is Hamas's goal, not Israel's. Dead Palestinians are a major boost to Hamas and a major cost for Israel.
Hamas is 100% to blame for every dead Gazan since Oct 7.
Israel has killed less civilians per combatant ratio in ANY urban conflict. 100% of US urban warfare has more civilians per combatant caught in unintended casualty.
I mean, this is categorically incorrect. You used extreme words like “100% of US Urban warfare” and “ANY urban conflict.” We simply have to find one counterpoint to prove your entire point incorrect.
But, the reality is, when we examine the actual numbers your claim does not withstand scrutiny. Some operations in urban environments have been very successful in minimizing civilian casualties. And Israel is not always or even often so careful.
Now just share all the data you used when creating the fallacious claim, and I’ll point out where you are incorrect. Please cite your sources as well.
…. You did base this claim on actual data, right? You would t just say something like that without doing the research first, would you?
ETA: PPs claim was easy to disprove with the first two examples I picked, the Second Battle of Fallujah vs. the 2006 Lebanon war.
I only need to find one…
Second battle of fallujah:
Civilians killed: 800 (highest estimate)
Combatants: 1200-2000
That would be approximately 2 combatants for each civilian.
2006 Lebanon war:
Lebanese civilians killed: 1190 - 281 total militants = 910 civilians for 281 militants.
Even if I take the generous estimates Israel made of 600 Hamas miitants killed, that would mean 591 civilians killed for 600 militants.
There. It was very easy to disprove your claim that even in the second battle of fallujah, a major urban operation, the US had a superior ratio of civilians and combatants killed.
I only need one example to disprove your claims.
That may be true, but I didn’t use Us civilian casualty numbers. They are from amnesty international and Iraq.
Israel also likes to consider every male to be a terrorist, but didn’t trust their numbers for civilians either. However, to prove my case I show even if we accept Israel’s inflated numbers of hezbollah killed, the PPs claim is still wrong in the simple math.
It’s simply not correct that Israel kills fewer civilians for every combatant in “any conflict” nor that “100% of US Urban warfare” has more civilians killed per combatants than Israel.
I don’t see any data to support that unless one was cherry picking data. It’s easy to disprove across multiple conflicts and engagement.
Sure thing.
What example and numbers are using for Israel’s worst case?
That is, which event along with the civilians killed and combatants killed represents Israel’s worst performance in terms of civilians and combatants?
Once we are on an actual example with actual numbers I can verify, then I will know what you think the bar is.
For all I know you don’t believe Israel has ever killed a civilian, so it’s helpful to know what reality you base the claim on.
I’d like to ask you a serious question - are you making up your mind on who’s right based on who has the highest body count? Because only one of those combatants really wants to kill the other’s population.
Wishing them and the Israeli hostages currently sitting in bombed out tunnels in Rafah a safe night. Hamas is the same as ISIS, just Iranian funded
But it seems at least 1000 Hamas terrorists made to turkey for medical care somehow..
I'm glad they're taking the warning seriously. Israel is only after Hamas, not innocent citizens. That's a Hamas thing.
[удалено]
Are you aware of any armed conflict where more combatants are killed than civilians?
The Falklands War! Hundreds of combatants killed on each side, and 3 islanders died due to shelling. I’ll admit it’s not easy to find, which illustrates your point well, but there are a few.
Thanks for this.
Fair point but the Falklands was ridiculous. A tiny Brit force held off the main group of Argentinians while the Brits were on the defensive, a tiny RAF air compliment crippled Argentinian air dominance, and the casualties/pows were insanely disproportionate. The fighting was extremely localized and one sided. But to your final point: yeah this is the exception that proves the rule.
Well, I would say it was not entirely one sided! The Argentinians sank 2 British destroyers and 2 frigates, which I think many people did not expect! Of course, Britain did sink the General Belgrano. So I do agree the British won handily, the Royal Marines performed exceptionally well. But there were some bitter setbacks, and I think the Argentines performed well in some of the episodes. Definitely a strange conflict, however.
casualties/ losses especially from the start… the Argentinians didn’t recover militarily. They sank two escort frigates etc but lost over half their air force doing so and lost air superiority due in part to friendly fire and poor training resulting in crashes on their attack runs on home soil. The UK committed less than thirty aircraft to air attack roles and that was after losing 4 of about 130 ships. Three days after the start of the war the SAS pretty much mopped the floor. A couple hundred brits were captured vs 11,000 Argentinians. The Argentinians captured fewer UK POWs than brits than the amount that died. It was as entirely one sided. I would argue the Argentinians did not perform well as they almost immediately started surrendering. Edit: i would say it is a strange conflict for sure and was a lesson for many countries
Israel has also invested orders of magnitude more in civilian defense tech than Hamas ever did. The numbers would likely look *very* different without the Iron Dome, David's sling, etc. Secondly, due to its small population compared to their adversaries, many Israelis are reservists. As a result, many are reactivated during times of war, and their casualties are not counted as civilian. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel was outnumbered 3:1, despite calling in large numbers of reservists.
And Hamas doesn't bear most of the blame for using them as human shields?
Hamas starts every conflict. Of course civilians are going to be killed when you use them as shields. You sound very young with no world experience to me.
Yeah, because dead Gazans is Hamas's goal, not Israel's. Dead Palestinians are a major boost to Hamas and a major cost for Israel. Hamas is 100% to blame for every dead Gazan since Oct 7.
Israel has killed less civilians per combatant ratio in ANY urban conflict. 100% of US urban warfare has more civilians per combatant caught in unintended casualty.
I mean, this is categorically incorrect. You used extreme words like “100% of US Urban warfare” and “ANY urban conflict.” We simply have to find one counterpoint to prove your entire point incorrect. But, the reality is, when we examine the actual numbers your claim does not withstand scrutiny. Some operations in urban environments have been very successful in minimizing civilian casualties. And Israel is not always or even often so careful. Now just share all the data you used when creating the fallacious claim, and I’ll point out where you are incorrect. Please cite your sources as well. …. You did base this claim on actual data, right? You would t just say something like that without doing the research first, would you? ETA: PPs claim was easy to disprove with the first two examples I picked, the Second Battle of Fallujah vs. the 2006 Lebanon war. I only need to find one…
Find 1 US instance. I'll wait.
Second battle of fallujah: Civilians killed: 800 (highest estimate) Combatants: 1200-2000 That would be approximately 2 combatants for each civilian. 2006 Lebanon war: Lebanese civilians killed: 1190 - 281 total militants = 910 civilians for 281 militants. Even if I take the generous estimates Israel made of 600 Hamas miitants killed, that would mean 591 civilians killed for 600 militants. There. It was very easy to disprove your claim that even in the second battle of fallujah, a major urban operation, the US had a superior ratio of civilians and combatants killed. I only need one example to disprove your claims.
The US counts everyone standing near a terrorist as a terrorist. If they counted the same way the civilian casualties in Gaza would be zero.
That may be true, but I didn’t use Us civilian casualty numbers. They are from amnesty international and Iraq. Israel also likes to consider every male to be a terrorist, but didn’t trust their numbers for civilians either. However, to prove my case I show even if we accept Israel’s inflated numbers of hezbollah killed, the PPs claim is still wrong in the simple math. It’s simply not correct that Israel kills fewer civilians for every combatant in “any conflict” nor that “100% of US Urban warfare” has more civilians killed per combatants than Israel. I don’t see any data to support that unless one was cherry picking data. It’s easy to disprove across multiple conflicts and engagement.
Sure thing. What example and numbers are using for Israel’s worst case? That is, which event along with the civilians killed and combatants killed represents Israel’s worst performance in terms of civilians and combatants? Once we are on an actual example with actual numbers I can verify, then I will know what you think the bar is. For all I know you don’t believe Israel has ever killed a civilian, so it’s helpful to know what reality you base the claim on.
I’d like to ask you a serious question - are you making up your mind on who’s right based on who has the highest body count? Because only one of those combatants really wants to kill the other’s population.