Palestinian boy shot by Israeli troops at Gaza border

[jdinasia]

As far as I know, you are still speculating.

Not speculation. Making things up. You are being extremely generous.

Without scrolling back, it looks like you are talking about the attack on a 10 year old child being defense and not just attempted murder.

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish.

[cup-O-coffee]

Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish.

No, Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish. The last several posts are way off topic and have nothing to do with the OP.

His does.

Furthermore, you are outright attacking him on his comment to the OP. You are not attacking his information, you are attacking his character, his method of surfing and posting on TV. This is the insane personality disorder I was referring to earlier. Avoid, digress and use ad hominem tactics. Hence, this is probably why mail boxes get filled up with what I suspect to be spamming personality disorders. That is my hypothetical guess.

A man with a high-powered sniper rifle, at the orders of his superiors (we suspect), intentionally fired a bullet across international boundaries, and into the body of a ten year old child, who was walking on his peoples land.

This child was exercising his free right to walk on his own land.

To date, there has been no reason given for violating every international law and human law of decency when this was acted out.

My guess, when the bully has all the power, he gets a real kick out of provoking (PROVOKING) the weakling into outrageous acts of retaliation so that the bully can go wide-eyed to the world and wave his arms in the air and yell, "See? We have to protect ourselves. They want to exterminate us. Remember the past? We have a right to survive."

Hey, people! Your IDF solder just attempted to murder a ten year old child walking on his land. That soldier fired shot across an international boundary. If you can't handle your paranoia, then maybe a bigger bully should take away your toys, yeah?

There was absolutely no reason to shoot that child. None! A right to survive should equate to cultivating peace and harmony with those who are not like you, and who think differently. We tell our children every day, "Be nice. Share. Be tolerant". Tolerance! A curious word selectively used often in other issues. A right to survive should not equate to racially charged behavior which history and science has proven (HAS PROVEN) will germinate seeds of discontent, hatred, vengeance, antagonism and every other kind of natural (NATURAL) human reaction in those being subjected to the provoking.

I tell my son, "Ya wanna survive in this world? Learn how to get along. Don't fence people in. Don't be a cry baby. Don't provoke people. Don't shoot down ideas and views you don't agree with. Learn to listen. If you can't respond with intelligence, then don't bomb other people with BS and ad hominems... simply shut up and move on, or go get some due diligence and then come back to the table with something informative to say. These words, my son, are how you begin to understand how to survive in this world."

Again, There was absolutely no reason to shoot that child. That has nothing to do with survival. It has nothing to do with defending survival. None!

And it works both ways, and for all peoples with no exclusions. I think this is fair.

Edit: I just went out and had a smoke. I wanted to come back and say that I really do not mean to offend. I think that reasonable people would understand this. My retort to UG is meant as a fellow human being to put him in his place. No attack is meant. Many times in the past UG has put me in my place and got me to view things differently. Everybody needs to be fair to each other. If this gets me banned, then I am willing to take the bullet for "having a walk" on my right to exercise my right to express my views on fairness and ridiculous expectations... even if it means walking near someone's "fence".

Edited November 19, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[Seastallion]

And the over-the-top melodrama continues:

"I bet that child in hospital is wondering why as well. "Mommy, why did they shoot me? Why Mommy. It hurts so much."

It's no more melodramatic than the drama queen ravings we often read from another poster.

However, in this case, it's probably quite accurate....if the poor child has not been orphaned by Israel that is, and has a mummy to cry to. And if he has a mum, how many weeks of bureaucracy will she have to go through to visit him?

Is it just Palestinian children you are so callous about, or all children?

As far as I know, you are still speculating. Haven't seen any information suggesting he's an orphan. yet you keep harping on

this notion. Most medical emergency cases which involve transfer to Israeli hospitals, include permits for family members or

care takers, especially when dealing with minors. As you are usually asking for "proof", may want to have a look at certain

cases involving family members of Hamas leadership (recently, Haniyeh's - there were others).

Would probably be wiser to wait for more details to come out, rather than spread unfounded speculations.

It's not so much speculation as it was a response to the callous and blame-shifting of earlier posts. "The blame lies solely with the parents", "Why weren't the parents looking after him", etc. I'm certainly not spreading unfounded speculations. I'm saying, "what if" because we don't know and certainly shouldn't be critcising parents.

Besides, of all the places in the world, the likeliehood of a child having lost it's parents is relatively high in Gaza.

I have read reports of parents struggling to get to visit children in Israeli hospitals. I'll try and find one if you want, but I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that those reports exist.

[cup-O-coffee]

And the over-the-top melodrama continues:

"I bet that child in hospital is wondering why as well. "Mommy, why did they shoot me? Why Mommy. It hurts so much."

It's no more melodramatic than the drama queen ravings we often read from another poster.

However, in this case, it's probably quite accurate....if the poor child has not been orphaned by Israel that is, and has a mummy to cry to. And if he has a mum, how many weeks of bureaucracy will she have to go through to visit him?

Is it just Palestinian children you are so callous about, or all children?

As far as I know, you are still speculating. Haven't seen any information suggesting he's an orphan. yet you keep harping on

this notion. Most medical emergency cases which involve transfer to Israeli hospitals, include permits for family members or

care takers, especially when dealing with minors. As you are usually asking for "proof", may want to have a look at certain

cases involving family members of Hamas leadership (recently, Haniyeh's - there were others).

Would probably be wiser to wait for more details to come out, rather than spread unfounded speculations.

It's not so much speculation as it was a response to the callous and blame-shifting of earlier posts. "The blame lies solely with the parents", "Why weren't the parents looking after him", etc. I'm certainly not spreading unfounded speculations. I'm saying, "what if" because we don't know and certainly shouldn't be critcising parents.

Besides, of all the places in the world, the likeliehood of a child having lost it's parents is relatively high in Gaza.

I have read reports of parents struggling to get to visit children in Israeli hospitals. I'll try and find one if you want, but I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that those reports exist.

Since this stems from my quoted text in here, then I will submit that waiting for more details to come out, and equating that with wisdom is ludicrous. Thank the stars for the Internet. Waiting for details to come out in the cowardly main media channels is like waiting for... well... we all know.

The point being, an innocent child has been shot by a soldier. The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given, because there is none to give other than a racially charged and racially motivated one... and that is not a reason. That is an excuse.

[Morch]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't. Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed. While the settlements in the West Bank are illegal (I do share this view), they aren't much of an ethnic cleansing effort when one compares them to the real deal in other places around the globe.

[Ulysses G.]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't. Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed.

Of course. Both "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" of Palestinians are ridiculous claims. All you have to do is compare them to the real thing.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't.

Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed.

While the settlements in the West Bank are illegal (I do share this view), they aren't much of an ethnic cleansing effort when

one compares them to the real deal in other places around the globe.

See the definition.

[jdinasia]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't. Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed.

Of course. Both "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" of Palestinians are ridiculous claims. All you have to do is compare them to the real thing.

Strange that the people who lived through both call Israel's treatment of Palestine /Palestinians exactly that...

[Ulysses G.]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

[Morch]

And the over-the-top melodrama continues:

"I bet that child in hospital is wondering why as well. "Mommy, why did they shoot me? Why Mommy. It hurts so much."

It's no more melodramatic than the drama queen ravings we often read from another poster.

However, in this case, it's probably quite accurate....if the poor child has not been orphaned by Israel that is, and has a mummy to cry to. And if he has a mum, how many weeks of bureaucracy will she have to go through to visit him?

Is it just Palestinian children you are so callous about, or all children?

As far as I know, you are still speculating. Haven't seen any information suggesting he's an orphan. yet you keep harping on

this notion. Most medical emergency cases which involve transfer to Israeli hospitals, include permits for family members or

care takers, especially when dealing with minors. As you are usually asking for "proof", may want to have a look at certain

cases involving family members of Hamas leadership (recently, Haniyeh's - there were others).

Would probably be wiser to wait for more details to come out, rather than spread unfounded speculations.

It's not so much speculation as it was a response to the callous and blame-shifting of earlier posts. "The blame lies solely with the parents", "Why weren't the parents looking after him", etc. I'm certainly not spreading unfounded speculations. I'm saying, "what if" because we don't know and certainly shouldn't be critcising parents.

Besides, of all the places in the world, the likeliehood of a child having lost it's parents is relatively high in Gaza.

I have read reports of parents struggling to get to visit children in Israeli hospitals. I'll try and find one if you want, but I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that those reports exist.

You have repeated this "what if" quite a few times, there is not a single peace of information to support it. Not sure how

this is not speculation.

As I have said in a previous post, in my opinion the shooting was uncalled for and unjustified. Holding this position does

not mean, though, that there's just that. While the IDF is in the wrong and bears the responsibility, this by itself does not

explain the boy wandering around near the border. Call it parents or care-takers, or whatever (it would actually be a safer

bet to assume there is someone in this role), it does look like someone wasn't paying attention (and that's without getting

into Hamas lookouts). There can be more than one party to blame, and no need to share the blame. Call it the two idiots

solution. And no, I am not making a claim regarding the similarity or amount of blame.

I am sure that statistics and figures could be supplied, but until such time, let me guess that you are wrong in assuming

that Gaza stands that high on orphaned children lists. One aspect of the local culture is having an extended family with

active ties, not quite sure that the orphans in the street notion is that common. Most local kids this age know better than

to go anywhere near the border, so it does seem odd.

Not saying that there are no bureaucratic hurdles for Palestinians seeking entry permits to Israel. Most cases when its a

medical emergency case, things are different. Chronic cases are probably more difficult to arrange. Wouldn't be surprised

by an article detailing a a bureaucratic nightmare etc., just don't think this is always the case.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. Please stay on topic.

[Morch]

It's no more melodramatic than the drama queen ravings we often read from another poster.

However, in this case, it's probably quite accurate....if the poor child has not been orphaned by Israel that is, and has a mummy to cry to. And if he has a mum, how many weeks of bureaucracy will she have to go through to visit him?

Is it just Palestinian children you are so callous about, or all children?

As far as I know, you are still speculating. Haven't seen any information suggesting he's an orphan. yet you keep harping on this notion. Most medical emergency cases which involve transfer to Israeli hospitals, include permits for family members or care takers, especially when dealing with minors. As you are usually asking for "proof", may want to have a look at certain cases involving family members of Hamas leadership (recently, Haniyeh's - there were others).

Would probably be wiser to wait for more details to come out, rather than spread unfounded speculations.

It's not so much speculation as it was a response to the callous and blame-shifting of earlier posts. "The blame lies solely with the parents", "Why weren't the parents looking after him", etc. I'm certainly not spreading unfounded speculations. I'm saying, "what if" because we don't know and certainly shouldn't be critcising parents.

Besides, of all the places in the world, the likeliehood of a child having lost it's parents is relatively high in Gaza.

I have read reports of parents struggling to get to visit children in Israeli hospitals. I'll try and find one if you want, but I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that those reports exist.

Since this stems from my quoted text in here, then I will submit that waiting for more details to come out, and equating that with wisdom is ludicrous. Thank the stars for the Internet. Waiting for details to come out in the cowardly main media channels is like waiting for... well... we all know.

The point being, an innocent child has been shot by a soldier. The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given, because there is none to give other than a racially charged and racially motivated one... and that is not a reason. That is an excuse.

Yup, you've made it clear on past topics that details are not your cup of tea. Never said anything about main media channels - as far as I'm aware there were no further details whatsoever at the time. Knowing more about what happened is ludicrous?

[Jingthing]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

I agree but let's all agree we wish this boy had never been shot and wish soldiers in any conflict situations take more care in avoiding shooting people who turn out to be no threat at all. But as long as there are conflict zones, these kinds of tragic incidents can't ever really be zero. Sometimes soldiers won't shoot when they SHOULD have shot and end up dead themselves. I don't pretend to be an expert on this one incident, but I tend to think Morch is right (as usual) that this shot should have never happened. Yes, again, nobody is claiming Israel is perfect or that every IDF soldier always acts properly.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Jingthing

[Morch]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't.

Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed.

While the settlements in the West Bank are illegal (I do share this view), they aren't much of an ethnic cleansing effort when

one compares them to the real deal in other places around the globe.

See the definition.

More than one of them around, not a very well defined concept, actually. But then, I guess most of us know the real thing when we watch news from other parts of the world. If you think that the way Israel treats the Palestinians (which I concur is not in any way ok), is on par with other instances of "ethnic cleansing" then we'd have to agree to disagree.

Black and white thinking is a real issue on this forum.

[Jingthing]

...

Black and white thinking is a real issue on this forum.

Put that one in lights on TIMES SQUARE!

[Ulysses G.]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

I agree but let's all agree we wish this boy had never been shot and wish soldiers in any conflict situations take more care in avoiding shooting people who turn out to be no threat at all. But as long as there are conflict zones, these kinds of tragic incidents can't ever really be zero. Sometimes soldiers won't shoot when they SHOULD have shot and end up dead themselves. I don't pretend to be an expert on this one incident, but I tend to think Morch is right (as usual) that this shot should have never happened. Yes, again, nobody is claiming Israel is perfect or that every IDF soldier always acts properly.

Of course. It is always sad when a child is hurt, but unfortunately bad things happen during wars and they are almost impossible to avoid sometimes.

Morch may indeed be correct, but I have not seen any evidence that the shooting was not a mistake by a soldier who did not realize that the trespasser was a child.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

So true if the Jews intended genocide of the Arabs they get grade F.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

True, ethnic cleansing is far more accurate, yet neither require the extinction of a group.

No, it wouldn't.

Despite claims, the Palestinians are not mass deported, not mass executed.

While the settlements in the West Bank are illegal (I do share this view), they aren't much of an ethnic cleansing effort when

one compares them to the real deal in other places around the globe.

See the definition.

More than one of them around, not a very well defined concept, actually.

But then, I guess most of us know the real thing when we watch news from other parts of the world.

If you think that the way Israel treats the Palestinians (which I concur is not in any way ok), is on par with other instances

of "ethnic cleansing" then we'd have to agree to disagree.

Black and white thinking is a real issue on this forum.

Guess I will go with the UN on this one.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBREA2K1JM20140321?irpc=932

[Jingthing]

The U.N. is always good for some old fashioned Israel demonization rhetoric, natch. It's like ... what they do! A bit ironic they are in New York City!

[Ulysses G.]

Guess I will go with the UN on this one.

I bet you will. Richard Falk the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. he is the furthest thing from an impartial source.

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/category/richard-falk/

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[cup-O-coffee]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

Semantics. I did not see the video. Another poster claims a case of mistaken identity, that the trained sniper could not distinguish it was a boy. How was he approaching? What sort of walking behavior does one act out to cause someone to shoot from a long range with intent to maim or murder? Given Israel's technology, I'll bet they could see the fuzz on the boys upper lip before the shot was taken. Speculation on my part, but I suspect not far from the truth.

Nothing in the immediate vicinity that the boy could damage with a bomb blast, even though he wasn't armed.

The zone you refer to as a contentious spot is not for Israel to say or decide. The bullet went where I described and in the manner I described. You are mitigating a crime against humanity and an act which provokes the weaklings to retaliate against the bully. Israel has no right to consider land not their land as a kill zone. When and only when the boy had touched their fence would have been the green light. Did it say how far away from the fence he was.

Moreover, what gives Israel the right to order or harass people on their own land, or threaten them for walking too near a fence in the middle of nowhere? Nothing, is the answer.

There are so many variable needed here for Israel to justify to the world that the boy represented a threat to their right to survive (referencing Netanyahu's rants about retaliation for the synagogue attacks) that it sickens me when I hear the pointless justifications for shooting a ten year old child at all, of any race.

He is a child UG. Would you have taken the shot?

Edited November 19, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[Ulysses G.]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

Nothing in the immediate vicinity that the boy could damage with a bomb blast, even though he wasn't armed.

How about the guards? Don't they count? And how could they know if he was armed, or not? There has been a number of Palestinian child suicide bombers.

You are posting pure speculation and with your track record, I would need to see something from a credible source to back up your opinions. Otherwise, that is all they are.

Saying Israel does not "have the right" to keep people away from its border is just plain silly. It is a common practice everywhere there is strife.

Would I take the shot? If I thought my life or my men's live were in danger, I would take the shot with a heavy heart. Any soldier would.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[JDGRUEN]

Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish.

No, Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish. The last several posts are way off topic and have nothing to do with the OP.

His does.

Furthermore, you are outright attacking him on his comment to the OP. You are not attacking his information, you are attacking his character, his method of surfing and posting on TV. This is the insane personality disorder I was referring to earlier. Avoid, digress and use ad hominem tactics. Hence, this is probably why mail boxes get filled up with what I suspect to be spamming personality disorders. That is my hypothetical guess.

A man with a high-powered sniper rifle, at the orders of his superiors (we suspect), intentionally fired a bullet across international boundaries, and into the body of a ten year old child, who was walking on his peoples land.

This child was exercising his free right to walk on his own land.

To date, there has been no reason given for violating every international law and human law of decency when this was acted out.

My guess, when the bully has all the power, he gets a real kick out of provoking (PROVOKING) the weakling into outrageous acts of retaliation so that the bully can go wide-eyed to the world and wave his arms in the air and yell, "See? We have to protect ourselves. They want to exterminate us. Remember the past? We have a right to survive."

Hey, people! Your IDF solder just attempted to murder a ten year old child walking on his land. That soldier fired shot across an international boundary. If you can't handle your paranoia, then maybe a bigger bully should take away your toys, yeah?

There was absolutely no reason to shoot that child. None! A right to survive should equate to cultivating peace and harmony with those who are not like you, and who think differently. We tell our children every day, "Be nice. Share. Be tolerant". Tolerance! A curious word selectively used often in other issues. A right to survive should not equate to racially charged behavior which history and science has proven (HAS PROVEN) will germinate seeds of discontent, hatred, vengeance, antagonism and every other kind of natural (NATURAL) human reaction in those being subjected to the provoking.

I tell my son, "Ya wanna survive in this world? Learn how to get along. Don't fence people in. Don't be a cry baby. Don't provoke people. Don't shoot down ideas and views you don't agree with. Learn to listen. If you can't respond with intelligence, then don't bomb other people with BS and ad hominems... simply shut up and move on, or go get some due diligence and then come back to the table with something informative to say. These words, my son, are how you begin to understand how to survive in this world."

Again, There was absolutely no reason to shoot that child. That has nothing to do with survival. It has nothing to do with defending survival. None!

And it works both ways, and for all peoples with no exclusions. I think this is fair.

Edit: I just went out and had a smoke. I wanted to come back and say that I really do not mean to offend. I think that reasonable people would understand this. My retort to UG is meant as a fellow human being to put him in his place. No attack is meant. Many times in the past UG has put me in my place and got me to view things differently. Everybody needs to be fair to each other. If this gets me banned, then I am willing to take the bullet for "having a walk" on my right to exercise my right to express my views on fairness and ridiculous expectations... even if it means walking near someone's "fence".

While you spend several paragraphs trying to make a point -- most of what you wrote here is just simplistic yelping ... A war of continuous and seemingly never ending flareups will bring on mistakes. War is hell.

You are aware that since at least the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War,,, add in the half dozen major conflicts of Israel and the Arab neighboring countries that there have been many instances of children killed - most quite regrettably - most were without intent and were accidental ... However - some in all these wars were intentional killings - and Why? Because in a number of cases the child was set up as a booby trap or with a bomb vest as the Militant Jihadis like to do it these days... With this as background - whether the child in question was perceived as a threat do to the practice of using children and women as weapons by barbaric Islamists... Or if the guard sentry came out from his concealed and protected place - a sniper could shoot him as he bends down to talk with the child who was sent by others on that deadly walk.

Did any of this happen ? I don't know and neither do you.

[JDGRUEN]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

Semantics. I did not see the video. Another poster claims a case of mistaken identity, that the trained sniper could not distinguish it was a boy. How was he approaching? What sort of walking behavior does one act out to cause someone to shoot from a long range with intent to maim or murder? Given Israel's technology, I'll bet they could see the fuzz on the boys upper lip before the shot was taken. Speculation on my part, but I suspect not far from the truth.

Nothing in the immediate vicinity that the boy could damage with a bomb blast, even though he wasn't armed.

The zone you refer to as a contentious spot is not for Israel to say or decide. The bullet went where I described and in the manner I described. You are mitigating a crime against humanity and an act which provokes the weaklings to retaliate against the bully. Israel has no right to consider land not their land as a kill zone. When and only when the boy had touched their fence would have been the green light. Did it say how far away from the fence he was.

Moreover, what gives Israel the right to order or harass people on their own land, or threaten them for walking too near a fence in the middle of nowhere? Nothing, is the answer.

There are so many variable needed here for Israel to justify to the world that the boy represented a threat to their right to survive (referencing Netanyahu's rants about retaliation for the synagogue attacks) that it sickens me when I hear the pointless justifications for shooting a ten year old child at all, of any race.

He is a child UG. Would you have taken the shot?

What gives Israel the right to control the so called Palestenians is continued acts of war against Israel by the Arabs living there... rockets fired daily, underground tunnels with terrorists running out, large groups of Arab youth throwing stones as big as grapefruits, acts of terrorism - people attacked and killed ... That is what gives Israel the right - it is called proactive self-defense...

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts. Not doing so makes you look extremely foolish.

No, Maybe, you should "scroll back" next time you comment on something and read the actual posts.

I did read the actual posts and his comment had nothing to do with them, which is exactly what I said. I even wrote one of them. It looks like both you and he have the same problem in that regard.

[Ulysses G.]

That is what gives Israel the right - it is called proactive self-defense...

And - much to the Israel demonizer's distress - a very successful one.

[jdinasia]

The boy was on his people's land. The soldier was on his land. The soldier fired a bullet across a territorial line and into the body of the boy. No reason given

The reason is pretty obvious. The boy was shot for approaching a sentry post at a very contentious border and refusing to identify himself or stop when ordered.

Semantics. I did not see the video. Another poster claims a case of mistaken identity, that the trained sniper could not distinguish it was a boy. How was he approaching? What sort of walking behavior does one act out to cause someone to shoot from a long range with intent to maim or murder? Given Israel's technology, I'll bet they could see the fuzz on the boys upper lip before the shot was taken. Speculation on my part, but I suspect not far from the truth.

Nothing in the immediate vicinity that the boy could damage with a bomb blast, even though he wasn't armed.

The zone you refer to as a contentious spot is not for Israel to say or decide. The bullet went where I described and in the manner I described. You are mitigating a crime against humanity and an act which provokes the weaklings to retaliate against the bully. Israel has no right to consider land not their land as a kill zone. When and only when the boy had touched their fence would have been the green light. Did it say how far away from the fence he was.

Moreover, what gives Israel the right to order or harass people on their own land, or threaten them for walking too near a fence in the middle of nowhere? Nothing, is the answer.

There are so many variable needed here for Israel to justify to the world that the boy represented a threat to their right to survive (referencing Netanyahu's rants about retaliation for the synagogue attacks) that it sickens me when I hear the pointless justifications for shooting a ten year old child at all, of any race.

He is a child UG. Would you have taken the shot?

What gives Israel the right to control the so called Palestenians is continued acts of war against Israel by the Arabs living there... rockets fired daily, underground tunnels with terrorists running out, large groups of Arab youth throwing stones as big as grapefruits, acts of terrorism - people attacked and killed ... That is what gives Israel the right - it is called proactive self-defense...

Can you show me where the legal concept of pro-active self-defense is in a dictionary?

And throwing stones is now terrorism? Really??

[jdinasia]

That is what gives Israel the right - it is called proactive self-defense...

And - much to the Israel demonizer's distress - a very successful one.

Hmmmm demonizers again? It was an Israeli that shot the child. They do well enough demonizing themselves!

[Jingthing]

Stones have killed so yes if thrown at civilians most definitely can be terrorism. At soldiers I think not.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

And throwing stones is now terrorism? Really??

Only when they hit you and not just in Israel.

Assaults by illegals, coyotes and narco-smugglers using large chunks of rock on US Border Patrol agents enforcing the US/Mexico border continues to escalate. These attacks can be life-threatening. In some instances, Border Patrol agents have been critically injured when struck in the face or head.

Known as "rockings" among the agents, some of these attacks have left agents no choice but to fire their weapons in self-defense. Unfortunately, in some instances, Border Patrol agents acting in self defense have killed their assailants.

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/the-kimery-report/blog/dangerous-rock-attacks-on-border-patrol-agents-are-up-chopper-brought-down-by-rock-in-79/56d720dfd2a031fd9638f6e8123a5ca0.html