Palestinian boy shot by Israeli troops at Gaza border

[Ulysses G.]

Hmmmm demonizers again?

Are your ears burning?

[Jingthing]

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!

So I guess you'll be sending them a thank you note.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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!

So I guess you'll be sending them a thank you note.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I will thank them when they stop murdering people that they are obliged by law to protect.

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm demonizers again?

Are your ears burning?

Nope

Calling a spade a spade is not demonizing anyone.

[jdinasia]

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

Strangely not characterized as terrorism in the article. Why? Because it is not. When is the last time you saw a 10 year old child throw a rock the size of a grapefruit?

And yes you cherry pick almost every response you make.

[Ulysses G.]

Hmmmm demonizers again?

Are your ears burning?

Calling a spade a spade is not demonizing anyone.

A spade a spade? You mean like your ridiculous claim that the Likud charter is virtually the same as the Hamas charter? Hamas calls for the genocide of Jews and Israelis in its charter. Trying to compare them with Likud is just plain absurd. Maybe you just have no nerve endings in the auris externa area.

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.

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.

So... you would have taken the shot. I thought so.

[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".

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.

Wow!

[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?

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...

Double Wow!

[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.

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.

Yes. According to a very small demographic, we, the world, have problems.

[mitsubishi]

If you don't know that Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews and become "martyrs" - suicide bombers - you need to get an education.

You know the hate get's taught on both sides right? The Palestinians don't have the monopoly on it that's for sure. I've met Israeli's that are just as extreme and they are much older than that lad! LOL

[cup-O-coffee]

Hmmmm demonizers again?

Are your ears burning?

Calling a spade a spade is not demonizing anyone.

A spade a spade? You mean like your ridiculous claim that the Likud charter is virtually the same as the Hamas charter? Hamas calls for the genocide of Jews and Israelis in its charter. Trying to compare them with Likud is just plain absurd. Maybe you just have no nerve endings in the auris externa area.

The point is, you are off topic yet again. The point is, the soldier took the shot. The point is, Israel shoots children in an effort to defend themselves against... children. Charters have nothing to do with it. The soldier has no soul. Considering all of the variables and possible courses of action that could have been taken, the soldier chose to shoot... and shoot he did. He has no soul. His commanding officer has no soul. Anyone, even Palestinians, who shoot children, have no souls.

It will be more and more difficult, as time goes by and these sort of choices are made, to convince the world that the BS they are being fed by the media is both tasty and nutritious.

[Jingthing]

We've been over this before. If you're suggesting anything close to an equivalence of teaching of racism you're obviously wrong. The Palestinian side is much worse anyone can discover comparing teaching materials.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[cup-O-coffee]

We've been over this before. If you're suggesting anything close to an equivalence of teaching of racism you're obviously wrong. The Palestinian side is much worse anyone can discover comparing teaching materials.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I had to break up an argument between two children the other day. Instead of taking sides with one of the children, I illustrated how silly the subject of their argument was, and showed them how to work together and share. They immediately grasped the possibilities of what I was suggesting and walked away laughing together.

Sometimes, it takes the mind of a child to put away that which can never be resolved, and began things anew, and with a fresh, creative approach.

[Ulysses G.]

The point is, the soldier took the shot.

The point is that any soldier would have taken the shot if he felt his men's lives were at risk and you have no evidence that he did not.

No one has appointed you moderator, by the way and I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[cup-O-coffee]

The point is, the soldier took the shot.

The point is that any soldier would have taken the shot if he felt his men's lives were at risk and you have no evidence that he did not.

No one has appointed you moderator, by the way and I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen.

Amazing. This is a very funny response from you. I mean... I am laughing now!

Simply amazing. God, you guys are funny.

Edit: And now we all know what happens after one demographic runs out if intelligent things to say, and runs the thread into the ground with ad hominems... (drum roll, ....please...)

Edited November 19, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[MJP]

Are we all okay in here?

[cup-O-coffee]

Are we all okay in here?

Y..y..yeah ... w...we...we're just ... we're just fine and dandy...ahhhh my.

[jdinasia]

We've been over this before. If you're suggesting anything close to an equivalence of teaching of racism you're obviously wrong. The Palestinian side is much worse anyone can discover comparing teaching materials.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I had to break up an argument between two children the other day. Instead of taking sides with one of the children, I illustrated how silly the subject of their argument was, and showed them how to work together and share. They immediately grasped the possibilities of what I was suggesting and walked away laughing together.

Sometimes, it takes the mind of a child to put away that which can never be resolved, and began things anew, and with a fresh, creative approach.

Sadly not likely as long as the IDF is shooting unarmed children.

[Ulysses G.]

And now we all know what happens after one demographic runs out if intelligent things to say

Y..y..yeah:cheesy: ... w...we...we're just:cheesy: ... we're just fine and dandy...ahhhh my.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

And now we all know what happens after one demographic runs out if intelligent things to say

Y..y..yeah:cheesy: ... w...we...we're just:cheesy: ... we're just fine and dandy...ahhhh my.

Do not feed with the 'ROLLS?

[arjunadawn]

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??

Terrorism is not defined simply by virture of weapons and targets. In fact, that would be a secondary criteria. Terrorism is roughly defined by the will to impose your viewpoint on a people with the aim to "terrorize," or strike terror in the population. The goals of such aims are to manipulate policy, elevate supremacy, or to assert nationalist or religious views on a government. The use terror is designed to make life subtley or profoundly unbearable, unsafe, so that authorities must crack down on all to ensure safety. The thinking is the people will then embrace the terrorists in response to overaction by government.

But then there are those who simply want to kill, maim, or otherwise make life unbearable. Some would say Israeli's themselves fit this description; maybe. But the palestinian general population does. When a person or government tries this or that action over and over again at a certain point it is futile to try again, and one knows what to expect. Thus the notion that a teenager with stones must certainly be late for homework only flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are in fact threats individually, or when manipulated to action to appear individually, as is now being done in Israel to give the impression of lone wolf attacks. When in a number of places we would have also shot an advancing car or person who refused to yeild or evidence any intention to comply. Experience demands this!

[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.

Guess I will go with the UN on this one.

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

That would be the UNHRC, actually. And specifically, Richard Falk.

Pardon me if I do not take this as an objective view.

Here's some reading on Falk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk

And here's what two UNSGs had to say about the UNHRC obsession with Israel:

But, I am worried by its disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other States as well.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2006/sgsm10788.doc.htm

The Secretary-General is disappointed at the Council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/sgsm11053.doc.htm

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Israel

[cup-O-coffee]

And now we all know what happens after one demographic runs out if intelligent things to say

Y..y..yeah:cheesy: ... w...we...we're just:cheesy: ... we're just fine and dandy...ahhhh my.

Do not feed with the 'ROLLS?

Are you calling me a troll, JT?

Are you provoking me, JT?

UG?

I thought you put me on your ignore list. No?

Over three hours your jackass post has been allowed. I have not reported it.

I'm simply waiting to see how this turns out...

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

//CLOSED//