If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
A more credible one than the US government or Israeli army actually. Given each body's track record on telling truths, I think there can be little doubt who we should believe if we have to pick a side of the argument.
So what are you suggesting anyway? That Amnesty is making it up? That it doesn't happen? Fine, close your eyes and believe what you want to believe. I guess it's all an international conspiracy by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and pretty much every single journalist, organisation and observer in the world who's visited the area. :rolleyes:
If you really are suggesting that the dozens of shooting incidents by Israeli soldiers into unarmed crowds of stone-throwing teenagers reported during the last 10 years are not true, then I shall not waste one more word with you.
I really hope that is not the case.
Jesus Fucking Christ! :mad:
I work with a former palestinian. His name is Muneer and he's a good person. Because I underestimated the power of one, he showed me the effect of one of those slings...
In biblical times, one slew a huge warrior.. In today's times, one will imbed a rock deep into a 2x4, a piece of lumber about 2" thick..
Its his opinion one would easily kill a man.
In my opinion, thanks to his educating me, I believe one would easily kill and they are a lot more accurate than I would have believed..
I'm suggesting Amnesty International has their own agenda.
"Stone-throwing" is not unarmed. Or maybe you missed the reports of people being stoned to death by the Taliban? Are you willing to stand still while I hurl stones at you?
It still looks as if Saddam Hussein's biggest crime is to be ruler of an oil rich country...
Nobody? That's a pretty exhaustive statement. Are you sure of that?
Btw, Do you know in what country the bulk of the engagements of the Gulf War took place?
Some things to look up...
Phase line Smash, Battle of 73 Easting, Medina Ridge, Objective Waterloo...
Btw, there are a number of historians who consider the European portion of WWII a continuation of WWI. The difference from the Gulf War is that WWI had a peace treaty, not just a cease-fire.
first up
The situation in NI is that the republic of Ireland has ceased to call for the return of the six counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone)
So, after centuries of humiliating occupation the rightful leaders of Northern Ireland (I will, for the sake of arguement, call them the government of Ireland) have given up hope and are negotiating a settlement. Just shows that centuries of brute force,intimidation, and incessant settlement gives you ownership to territory. The Israelis need only move more settlers into the West Bank, create a majority and then put annexation to vote ala the British model. Brilliant. You are right, there is a difference. Thanks for clearing that up.
Next
I must have missed the moment when Israeli troops were sent in to the West Bank to defend the Palestinians from the Israeli settlers then... Yes, you must have, all the palestinians who report for the world news agencies must have missed it to. Or maybe they just choose not to report it. hmm. I wonder. I wonder if Israelis marched every year through every town and village in the West Bank how the "peaceful" muslim population would react? How quintissentially British. First we will massacre your people, then we will hold yearly parades through your neighborhoods while guided by the British army. How enlightened, how hypocritical. I could talk the wonderful Orange parades all night long, but I digress. what you also missed was PLO terrorists fleeing to the IDF to avoid being killed by Jordanian Army troops during Black September.
Next
Yes, he did. But again your ignorance shows. Montgomery replaced the Commander (Warple? something like that I think funny how his name is forgotten) who was losing that aspect of the war. Montgomery argued for more forces because he knew that the Germans were better soldiers on a 1-1 level. The fact that he built up a 10-1 advantage is just good tactics to me. He won, didn't he?
No, actually logistics are seperate from tactics. Montogeries tactics were always atrocious. He had two operations which he planned. I dismal slug up Sicily where patton became so impatient he just went around montogmery. manuever over slaughter, never monty's forte. Then there was the aforementioned market garden, whose sole contribution was the slaughter and caputure of the fine British 1st Airborne and Polish Brigade. Well done old chap. I won't even go into Monty's failure to capture his D-day objective until over a month later. Don't get me wrong, Monty was the best british general in the european theatre, he just was a raving incompetent. Slim, on the other hand, was an inspired leader. Unfortunately, after the loss of singapore, (another colonial jewel in the crown) the english weren't as interested in the Pacific theatre so General Slim never received the recognition he deserved (oops, is that history? Yanks don't know histroy)
Next
Using case studies to make its point, Amnesty described how 11-year-old Palestinian boy Sami Fathi Abu Jazzar died when soldiers fired live ammunition into a crowd of mostly primary school children, some of whom had thrown stones.
While comprised mostly of school children, it could be inferred there was a secondary population of something besides school children. gunmen, perhaps? No. THe palestinians would never open fire behind a crowd of children hoping to up the body count and get good press. Not the peace loving people of palestine.
The bitch is in the details. If the report said, "comprised entirely of primary school children, that would be different. What was the name of the reporter on the scene I wonder.
Next
1. Errrm well my family being from the Emerald Isle I think you'll find that the Protestants are different to the Jews because they are the majority. And how did protestants get to be the majority. It took a few hundred years. Good example, increase the settler population immediatly. Also attach the locals to drive them out.
Quick general question. If Israel is such a racist apartheid (fill in the rest, the rhetoric gets tiring). Why are the arabs clamoring to return?
next
Ariel Sharon is a facist murdering lunatic, almost most world's leaders think that. fuck isreal u have no right to be in palestine. we wear the keys of our old house round our neck for someday we will return. PLO
A more eloquent expression of the palestinian position I have never read. Thank you.
next
The British are seperate from the central conflict which is between 2 different religious orders but both Irish. British troops (attempt to) act as a peace making force. Hmm, the SAS seems to focus their attention on the more Gaelic of the two it seems. Yes, the protestant settlers in Ireland were born there, so now they are Irish. One more generation and the jews in the West Bank will be palestinian. Americans don't know History?!?!?
next
I guess it's all an international conspiracy by Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and pretty much every single journalist, organisation and observer in the world who's visited the area.
All of whom swore witnessing the Jenin massacre until they couldn't find proof. Red Crescent (there is no red cross in the west bank), Amnesty International, and the news organizations (which comprise of free-lance palestinians selling stories to Reuters and AP) all swore to the massacre of civilians in Jenin. Of course, that was a lie. But the only one they have been caught in. What other lies have they told which haven't been caught. Once a liar, always a liar.
Next
The undoubtedly deplorable human rights abuses committed by Hussein to maintain his grip on Iraqi citizens through terror are not the business of the US. But Slobodan Milosovich and Ariel Sharon are? My, you Euros pick your interventionalism carefully, don't we?
Next
If current events lead to a war between America and North Africa, I don't expect much restraint to be shown towards Iraq. Are we invading Libya and Algeria now? Greenhat, that is news to me.
Or is map reading not on the socialist induction training in the schools these days?
As it is late here, and obviously quite early there. I bid adeau and wait to here the next list of inane replies
Good Night, God Bless
Besides, lumping the above in with a number of other inane comments on one post tends to make you look like an uber tosser, doesn't it? Less is definitely more where you're concerned...
So are you saying that shooting live ammunition is an adequate and reasonable response to stone-throwing? Pleeeease! :rolleyes:
A rather ridiculous comparison between the Taleban and Palestinian kids is it not? The stoning to death of a person is the carrying of a death sentence. The condemned stands alone and unprotected against a wall with a couple of hundred bastards throwing stone upon stone at him at short distance until he dies. The condemned doesn't have the benefit of cover, of tanks and armoured vehicles, of state of the art personal armour, of a helmet, of a much greater distance between the stone throwers and himself, of colleagues who will assist to repel the attack and a hundred other factors like the Israeli soldiers have at their disposal.
Would you also approve of the Seattle police opening fire on WTO demonstrators? Should we shoot rioters in Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, Germany and every other country were people are throwing objects to the police and the military (armed to the teeth at that)?
If, as you claim, your position in the US army forbids you to criticise any action, no matter how barbaric, committed by the Israeli army you should simply refrain from commenting. Don't try to justify the unjustifiable.
Think that you forgot that the only thing which is concidered a weapon, is a gun
Aladdin; As reverse was kind enough to explain, a stone can do much harm. And also don't forget that it's not only soldiers being aimed at with those 'harmless' stones, but often civilian Israelis. God knows what damages I could have caught if it wasn't for those soldiers "who only seek to use their time, their efforts, and expensive ammunition to hurt palestinians".
And btw, do you think that every soldier in duty is covered in a shell from the neck down, and a helmet, surrounded by a tank?
I want you to think about a demonstration taking place in Denmark. The participants are mostly young and are getting aggressive, and start throwing rocks at the police. And the police, instead of using water cannons, gas canisters or many other options at their disposal, get their assault rifles and start firing at them. 11 year old kids are killed.
I am positive such incident would rightly provoke an outrage in Denmark, and you would be the first to express your disgust at the police.
But somehow, if we are talking about Palestinian children the picture changes, doesn't it?
Actually, I was just pointing out that your statement that someone throwing stones was unarmed was factually wrong.
Along the lines that their were already people living on that land, and that these people did not agree to the mass Jewish immigration or to the setting up of a Jewish state that does not treat Palestinians as equals.
Funny thing. Some of the people who were living on that land were Jews. And Israel gave the opportunity for every resident of the portion of the Palestinian territory that became Israel to become Israeli citizens. Might note that Israel has Islamic citizens and Islamics in their government. And the government is a representative democracy, unlike every other country in the region.
Whats with 'Islamics' as well, surely it is Muslims
Might remember that the "Palestinians" want land that actually once belonged to Jordan, Egypt and Syria...not to them. And they have been kicked out of those countries. Not the best of guests with their friends....yet you expect them to live beside their enemies (their proclamation)?
The soviet invasion analogy was simply to refer to the influence of a foreign power, not of a war.
Indeed there are. Shall I start now...?
That is once I have worked out which parts are quotes, and which are your replies...
Why? Because they recognise that the people who live there, will not vote for it. Shit, democracy is such a bitch huh?
So who are the "rightful" leaders of Northern Ireland then? The southern Irish do you mean?
So lets do a little history check here. The Brits occupied Ireland in the 12th Century. 800 years later, you argue that the indigenous population should be the rightful owners.
So now I bring up the Native Americans again. How long ago was the US "discovered" and populated (and yes, I know who did that)? Less time surely, so my question, using your logic, is why aren't the Native Americans the rightful owners of your country?
The answer is simple - immigration. Time has passed and the make up of the country has changed - see addition of Texas and Alaska as further examples of that.
I will never dispute that the British often acted without honour, but to compare the situation between the 12th Century (when the Brits first were "invited" into Ireland) and the start of the 20th Century (when the IRA first found real support) with the current Israeli conflict is laughable.
Except you were talking about UK troops, who entered Ireland in 1969 to defend the catholics against the oppressive attacks from the black and tans. Like I said, when did Israeli ever actually defend Palestinians?
And the relevance here is what. Answer the question, are Israeli troops there to defend Arabs, or not?
Yes, so could I. If you knew had been here for any length of time, you would know that I condemn that too.
Hardly hypocritical is it?
If you ignore the entire Africa campaign...
In which he defeated Rommel, recognised as one of the best Generals in history.
Yes, a Bridge Too Far. I know the story, and yes it was a disaster, next you'll suggest that Rommel was a poor leader because we managed to land forces in Normandy...
Actually, they are. Those Arabs who are Israelis.
Not murder, but selfdefence...
I am by no means supporting the death of any kid. But I am just as much against the methods used by some of the palestinians.
A soldier is a human being, and as far as I know every human being will fight to survive.
Meaning that when someone throws a rock at me, and I don't have a rock to respond with- but a gun, then hell I am going to use the gun and not start to search for a rock. I am here to live my life, not to get killed cause some people find my methods immoral.
And you know what, apperently the Danish police did come to understand the Israeli military not too long ago.
There was a football match, Denmark vs. Israel, and of course the mass demonstarations began. Among the demonstraters were small kids and teens, who thought that they'd take up a good example and throw stones at the police who were there to stop the riots. I can tell you that the day after, reports about kids being hurt by the police were to find.
So apperently it's not only in Israel, but even a small unimportant (mostly) neutral country like Denmark will take up the necessary methods when needed.
A quote from an article which could be found here.
And as Greenhat has stated before Jordan, Egypt and Syria have never offered this land to the palestinians themselves. Funny that they are so against Israel in the conflict, but havn't made any efforts to integrate the Palestinians in the above mentioned countries.
I'm sorry, but you appear to lack any sense of proportion. The children threw stones and you respond by shooting them dead? That is not a proportional response; it is murder by any civilised definition. You shouldn't need to search for a rock to throw either; looking for the rock, or using the gun, are indicative of the mentalities which pervade the Israeli state, contributing to making a peaceful solution impossible.
Were a few stones really threatening the lives of the soldiers to the extent that their decision to become child murderers arose out of basic human survival instinct? I severely doubt it. Israeli soldiers wear helmets and armour, and have access to shields and armoured vehicles. These are likely sufficient to defend from a stone thrown by a small child. The child, meanwhile, has only his or her clothes, if he or she is lucky, to protect from the Israeli bullets. Hardly effective, and hardly proportional. :rolleyes: The Israeli soldiers do have instincts, but the instinct to shoot a child dead could only be described as abhuman. Do not attempt to apply the instinctual template of a "normal" human being to an Israeli soldier in the same way that you refuse to apply it to a Palestinian.
Unfortunately, your courageous grasp of English breaks down at the vital point in your penultimate quoted paragraph, but I would be fairly certain that the Danish police did not shoot any children dead, and, if they had, then the police responsible would not be congratulated for killing Palestinian scum, as Israeli soldiers are, but would likely face investigation and possibly trial. That is one of the many differences between a civilised nation and the illegal Israeli state.
Frankly, I will do what I choose to do.
I have been blessed with a teeny tiny amount of brain to allow me to do that, and comprehend the fact that I have the ability to do so *Little and Naive Danish Girl* :rolleyes:
Anything else?:angel:
Please do not put words in my mouth or feed me with actions (especially some wich are untrue). I am as stated above, capeable to do so myself.
When have Israelis ever been congratulated for killing children?
If all, the state has actually been giving apologies.
No soldier intends to kill the kids (if they do, then they should be removed), but the killings do happen. The consequences of selfdefence, which has been triggered by the stonethrowers in the first place.
And what can you expect? Don't they search for a reaction? Shouldn't they know by now, that a soldier (or anyone else for that matter) won't just stand while having a threat over his head?
Going to discuss my English abilities again?
If it's too difficult for you to understand what I write, then name a language and I will see what I can do to write a reply in your chosen tongue, without making too many mistakes.
The Israeli Defence Force indiscriminately fires at civilians and children in response to stone throwing, but that's okay because the Israeli Government apologises after! How stupid of me not to realise that an apology will make up for the loss of a child!
The apologies will be empty as long as it remains the policy of the Israeli Government to give carte blanche to the IDF to do what they like to the Palestinians with no fear of genuine official investigation or prospect of genuine reprimand.
Perhaps I have a slightly different interpretation of the evidence than you, but the way I see it is this. A soldier sees a crowd of stonethrowing children. He shoots into the crowd. Children die. Did he have some other intention when he shot into the crowd? Did he think that the bullets would destroy the stones and leave the children unharmed? Either he intended to kill the children, and is therefore a criminal, or he does not understand the consequences of firing at someone, and thus it is criminally negligent to give him a gun in the first place.
And you still ignored my point of disproportion, in fact, from your response, I think you didn't understand it.
Shooting a child dead is not an acceptable response to the child throwing a stone at you. It doesn't matter if you feel threatened; it doesn't matter if in your bizarre morality a normal human being would respond to stone throwing children by murdering them. It is plain and simply wrong to summarily execute the child. Just wrong.
I only highlighted the mistake because it made it impossible to understand your point and thus to give a full response. Were easy to find? Were hard to find? Were impossible to find? The omission of a word there renders the sentence incomprehensible. I do not criticise the language to point-score, merely to request clarification of what you meant.