mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Not guilty. Options
Atiya
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:36:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 2,034
Neurons: 6,093
Location: India
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:52:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
Without trying to politicize this case of murdering of a little Palestinian girl, captain's move shows the desperation and insecurity that country (Israel) feels about its very existence and future.

Is this an unjust deliberation and unpunished crime? IMHO it is.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:55:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Margarit Bamllari wrote:
Without trying to politicize this case of murdering of a little Palestinian girl, captain's move shows the desperation and insecurity that country (Israel) feels about its very existence and future.

Is this an unjust deliberation and unpunished crime? IMHO it is.


Of course it was a crime. And let us not try to find excuses for such things. Yes, the conditions are volatile. But much of it is Israel's own fault. They have really degenerated into a murderous nation, IMO.
srirr
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:10:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
Two points I would like to make:

1. It is a controversial and never ending debatable discussion. For security reasons, such killings are justified. For humanitarian reasons, never justified.

2. The news is five years old. Has the scene changed in these five years? Has any ammendment to (security) laws and operations been made? Do we have sufficient information?
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:14:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
kisholoy mukherjee wrote:
Margarit Bamllari wrote:
Without trying to politicize this case of murdering of a little Palestinian girl, captain's move shows the desperation and insecurity that country (Israel) feels about its very existence and future.

Is this an unjust deliberation and unpunished crime? IMHO it is.


Of course it was a crime. And let us not try to find excuses for such things. Yes, the conditions are volatile. But much of it is Israel's own fault. They have really degenerated into a murderous nation, IMO.


I would rather say a murderous government than a nation. The real problem is that they feel unsafe, insecure; surrounded from enemies and are pulling verything to the extreme. On the other hand doing so makes things worse as it only infuriates palestinians and all arabs in general.
lenam
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:34:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2010
Posts: 1,282
Neurons: 3,816
Location: India
It is indeed a crime, no matter who the person committed it.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:42:02 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
I think I agree in general with both Margarit and srirr. However, srirr, I don't think it is 'justifiable' even in terms of security. IF you've read the article, you'll know that there were many guards present. And yet they chose to kill the girl. In fact, she was riddled with no less than 17 bullets!! 17!! And on top of that, he was declared not guilty. And as if that wasn't enough to make a mockery of the laws of humanity, the 'captain' even said that he would have done the same even if the girl had been only 3 years old!!
Now, I understand the security concerns and all that, but from all the above information, I think the general mindset of the people (or to be more politically correct, the government) towards the Palestinians is quite clear. There isn't an ounce of shame even, let alone remorse, for having killed that innocent girl so mercilessly.

So i don't think it is justifiable even on grounds of security. You can say it was a circumstantial error of judgment or a 'very very hard decision'. I cannot think of anything in this world that I would pass off as 'justifiable' if it were not humanitarian.

If an Indian soldier kills an unarmed Pakistani intruder, I would say the same thing. Yes, detain the person and do a thorough check by all means. Send that person back and deny entrance if necessary. But killing him/her?? Especially if that is a child? (granted there are children who are being used as suicide bombers, still...)
And if in the heat of the moment, something untoward does take place, the army and the government must take responsibility and take actions against the concerned.

This is exactly the kind of mindset/action that keeps fueling the tension between neighboring foes.
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:23:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
This is just one episode of what israelis have done/are doing in the name of security while building fences and walls and isolating palestinians to the limits of their existence.

About this issue I would like to see as many comments as when we talk, let say, once someone opens up a topic about sexual matters.

Where are other most active Avanced Members?
Cass
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:29:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/19/2009
Posts: 589
Neurons: 1,770
Location: United States
If I am reading the article correctly the Captain wasn't charged with murder but with minor offenses and of these he was found not guilty. He was a Druse and I had to look this term up as I didn't know what it meant. Apparently it's a form of Islam. Could this possibly have had a bearing on the outcome of the trial? It seems to me that he could have been a scapegoat for the Israeli court but they chose not to go that route. Perhaps that is why he wasn't charged with murder, who knows. We can only speculate. Children die in war and it is pitiable but unavoidable.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:43:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Cass wrote:
Children die in war and it is pitiable but unavoidable.


What a terrible thing to say. This isn't war, this is murder. There is proof (a tape) of that. Perhaps you didn't read the whole article.
peterhewett
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:41:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
No KM it was not murder... overkill yes... but not murder. The Palistinians use women and children to plant sucide bombs on them, who then is the murderer? She could of been a suicide bomber. We do not know what warnings if any were shpouted at her etc...we don't know all the facts. The callous way bullets were pumped into her after she was dead is very bad. Soldiers are living on the edge and lose their friends to bombers. Sadly this case is not black and white. What were her parents doing letting her near the Israeli post?
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:15:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
peterhewett wrote:
No KM it was not murder... overkill yes... but not murder. The Palistinians use women and children to plant sucide bombs on them, who then is the murderer? She could of been a suicide bomber. We do not know what warnings if any were shpouted at her etc...we don't know all the facts. The callous way bullets were pumped into her after she was dead is very bad. Soldiers are living on the edge and lose their friends to bombers. Sadly this case is not black and white. What were her parents doing letting her near the Israeli post?


Peter, I don't want to argue if it was a murder or not, but the attitude of the Palestinians, one of no shame and remorse tells the story. Besides, there is evidence - a tape.
Moreover, I did say that in the heat of battle, such unfortunate incidents do take place, but the concerned country/government should not take it lightly.
Not only was the girl pumped with 17 bullets, there was no remorse on part of the person who committed the act. He said he would have done it to a 'three year old' as well. That speaks volumes about the prevalent inhumanity.
Yes we do not know all the facts but if indeed this was a murder (which I think it was) then was it not a condemnable act?? And punishable?

As for her parents letting her near the Israeli post, well, I don't have much to say about that except that parents do not always accompany their children. I hope you know that. Children often make such mistakes. That is what makes them children.

It brings tears to one's eyes to think that the lives of the next generations (the children) are so messed up in such ill-fated places like the Israel-Palestine and Kashmir that they cannot be expected to even be like children anymore.


worldsclyde
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:34:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 785
Neurons: 2,390
Location: Spokane, WA USA
Very sad. Trying to put myself in the place of the shooter, If things like this are necessary for my country to exist, then my country should not exist. Find another way or quit.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:46:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
worldsclyde wrote:
Very sad. Trying to put myself in the place of the shooter, If things like this are necessary for my country to exist, then my country should not exist. Find another way or quit.


Applause Applause Bravo
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:44:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Well, to add more to the discussion:

The transcript from the radio conversations are given, which clearly exposes the brutality of this murderous act.
Check out the given link for that.
And most importantly, the girl was shot while she was running away.

'After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.'


srirr
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 2:05:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
worldsclyde wrote:
Very sad. Trying to put myself in the place of the shooter, If things like this are necessary for my country to exist, then my country should not exist. Find another way or quit.


Sorry if I sound inhumane, but national security and integrity are far above emotional weaknesses, IMO.
srirr
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 2:16:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
kisholoy mukherjee wrote:
Well, to add more to the discussion:

The transcript from the radio conversations are given, which clearly exposes the brutality of this murderous act.
Check out the given link for that.
And most importantly, the girl was shot while she was running away.

'After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.'




1. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed,

The bombs (just speculating) could be tied to her under her dress. Think of the possibilities.

2. (the girl) was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

She was afraid of being caught (if she was guilty). An intentional invader will try to run away sensing the danger. Once again, think of the possibilities.

Also being discussed is her age. An age of 13 is both innocent as well as aware of seriousness of border, security, bullets. There are examples where young kids of 10-12 are trained to be militants. They may be forced into the business, but once they are in, they can be deadly.

**Edit: Several bullets pumped. Yes, that was avoidable. But again, it is nowhere mentioned that these bullets were shot from a single rifle by a single soldier. May be all the guards were ready and they opened fire at the target.
abcxyz
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 7:46:12 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 1,056
Neurons: 3,200
Location: India
srirr wrote:

1. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed,

The bombs (just speculating) could be tied to her under her dress. Think of the possibilities.

2. (the girl) was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

She was afraid of being caught (if she was guilty). An intentional invader will try to run away sensing the danger. Once again, think of the possibilities.

Also being discussed is her age. An age of 13 is both innocent as well as aware of seriousness of border, security, bullets. There are examples where young kids of 10-12 are trained to be militants. They may be forced into the business, but once they are in, they can be deadly.

**Edit: Several bullets pumped. Yes, that was avoidable. But again, it is nowhere mentioned that these bullets were shot from a single rifle by a single soldier. May be all the guards were ready and they opened fire at the target.


1. If there was a bomb in her clothes and she was running away, what was the point of shooting? She(and hence the bomb) was moving away from the base.
2. Whether an invader or not, when people are shot at they run. People don't usually shoot people they want to catch alive, they start with a warning.
srirr
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 7:52:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
abcxyz wrote:

1. If there was a bomb in her clothes and she was running away, what was the point of shooting? She(and hence the bomb) was moving away from the base.


If a guilty person is trying to run away, should he/she be allowed to? No. A big No.

abcxyz wrote:
2. Whether an invader or not, when people are shot at they run. People don't usually shoot people they want to catch alive, they start with a warning.


She (might) was warned, we don't know. But I still am of the opinion that she was warned. Why else would she realise that she had come to a wrong place and she should not be there?
Moreover, laws at country border are different from civil laws. No one is allowed to enter the no man's land near border. The security has the rights to shoot at sight.
abcxyz
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 8:00:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 1,056
Neurons: 3,200
Location: India
srirr wrote:
abcxyz wrote:

1. If there was a bomb in her clothes and she was running away, what was the point of shooting? She(and hence the bomb) was moving away from the base.


If a guilty person is trying to run away, should he/she be allowed to? No. A big No.

abcxyz wrote:
2. Whether an invader or not, when people are shot at they run. People don't usually shoot people they want to catch alive, they start with a warning.


She might was warned, we don't know. But I still am of the opinion that she was warned. Why else would she realise that she had come to a wrong place and she should not be there?
Moreover, laws at country border are different from civil laws. No one is allowed to enter the no man's land near border. The security has the rights to shoot at sight.


1. True, but first make sure the person is guilty.
2. How she realised she had come to the wrong place? Well, perhaps being shot at gave her a clue?

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 9:00:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
srirr wrote:
abcxyz wrote:

1. If there was a bomb in her clothes and she was running away, what was the point of shooting? She(and hence the bomb) was moving away from the base.


If a guilty person is trying to run away, should he/she be allowed to? No. A big No.

abcxyz wrote:
2. Whether an invader or not, when people are shot at they run. People don't usually shoot people they want to catch alive, they start with a warning.


She (might) was warned, we don't know. But I still am of the opinion that she was warned. Why else would she realise that she had come to a wrong place and she should not be there?
Moreover, laws at country border are different from civil laws. No one is allowed to enter the no man's land near border. The security has the rights to shoot at sight.


Your sentence of:"If a guilty person is trying to run away, should he/she be allowed to? No. A big No."

A 13 year old girl(presumably indoctrinated, brainwashed sucide bomber) SHOULD BE allowed to run away. What are you talking about srirr? As I said in my above post they don't know what they are doing. It looks like we are still in the captain' trial court room.NOT GUILTY
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 10:17:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Good point Margarit. srirr, how could you say this?? A 13 year old can be indoctrinated/brainwashed, how can he/she be considered guilty?
Besides, the girl was running AWAY. AWAY from the base. What danger could she possibly have posed? And abc is right; they could have injured her at most if in any way they had thought that she was posing a threat, though I can't see how she was. But instead they chose to confirm 'the kill'.

srirr said: "But again, it is nowhere mentioned that these bullets were shot from a single rifle by a single soldier."

She was shot at point blank range on her head, three times by the captain himself. It is given in the article.

The mentality is clear - that of hatred towards the Palestinians on part of the Israeli govt/army. Of course there is hostility, but it is the job of us as a species to try and keep the spirit of humanity alive. To justify such an act is indeed, as was said by the girl's father (I think), 'murdering the girl for the second time'.


srirr said: Moreover, laws at country border are different from civil laws. No one is allowed to enter the no man's land near border. The security has the rights to shoot at sight.


This did not happen near a country border. It was just a military outpost.
srirr
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 12:26:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
Thanks KM for remindng me that it was not a border but a refugee camp. Still, the threat to security can not be taken lightly in any case. The no man's land on borders and the high security zone in question here are very sensitive. No one can take a chance there. We are debating after it was established that the girl was innocent. I understand she had no intentions to cause any damage. But we are talking this now. Now when the incident is over.

What if she was not innocent? What if she was a real threat? What if she could succeed in blowing up the post or any other area? Then the so-called huminatarians would not have raised their voice.


Margarit said:
A 13 year old girl(presumably indoctrinated, brainwashed sucide bomber) SHOULD BE allowed to run away.

I do not vouch for this. Suspects or established threat should not be allowed to run away. I will prioritize security first.

Kisholoy said:
the girl was running AWAY. AWAY from the base. What danger could she possibly have posed?

A danger may be not at present, but may be in future, in next attempts.
If a terrorist was in the question here, would you have said the same? Let the terrorist run away as he is not a danger at present. Ok fine, when he will come again as a danger, we will take care.
You'll say that she was not a terrorist. But remember, this could only be established after the actions were taken. If she was all allowed to run away, we might never know whether she was innocent or not.


She was shot at point blank range on her head, three times by the captain himself.

Close distance firing was done to confirm the kill. It is a common and accepted practice among all the security forces. If a target is shot from a distance first and it falls down, the forces should hit from the close range to confirm the kill.

From the article:
Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts
<initial firing from a distance; kill not confirmed>

Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."

Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."


It was not a murder, it was a kill, an operational compulsion may be. It was not without reason.

But I agree to one of your points.
The mentality is clear - that of hatred
Unfortunately, we can not eradicate this.
abcxyz
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 1:58:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 1,056
Neurons: 3,200
Location: India
So, according to your laws, an accusation is enough to hang somebody.

Quote:
What if she was not innocent? What if she was a real threat? What if she could succeed in blowing up the post or any other area? Then the so-called huminatarians would not have raised their voice.


Discuss the present case. Will a person with the intent to blow up a military base run away from it?

Quote:
Margarit said:
A 13 year old girl(presumably indoctrinated, brainwashed sucide bomber) SHOULD BE allowed to run away.

I do not vouch for this. Suspects or established threat should not be allowed to run away. I will prioritize security first.



Do you beat up everyone on the street that looks like a pickpocket?

Quote:
Kisholoy said:
the girl was running AWAY. AWAY from the base. What danger could she possibly have posed?

A danger may be not at present, but may be in future, in next attempts.
If a terrorist was in the question here, would you have said the same? Let the terrorist run away as he is not a danger at present. Ok fine, when he will come again as a danger, we will take care.
You'll say that she was not a terrorist. But remember, this could only be established after the actions were taken. If she was all allowed to run away, we might never know whether she was innocent or not.

After you've killed somebody, it really does not matter whether she was innocent or not. We establish innocence/guilt to make sure that the wrong person isn't prosecuted.

Quote:
She was shot at point blank range on her head, three times by the captain himself.

Close distance firing was done to confirm the kill. It is a common and accepted practice among all the security forces. If a target is shot from a distance first and it falls down, the forces should hit from the close range to confirm the kill...
It was not a murder, it was a kill, an operational compulsion may be. It was not without reason.


Well, at least you agree that no matter what, the captain wanted the girl dead.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 2:39:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
srirr wrote:
Thanks KM for remindng me that it was not a border but a refugee camp. Still, the threat to security can not be taken lightly in any case. The no man's land on borders and the high security zone in question here are very sensitive. No one can take a chance there. We are debating after it was established that the girl was innocent. I understand she had no intentions to cause any damage. But we are talking this now. Now when the incident is over.


srirr...I hope you are aware of these two things:

1. Israel-Palestine-Gaza are high-tension and volatile zones. At any place at any time, there is a so-called security threat. Ordinary people must be finding it damn hard to even move about. Often there are mobile units which are placed here and there, some stay for weeks some may stay for months and some days. It is hard to tell. The country is in dire straits. So that place wasn't anything special. It may well have been that the military post came in the way of her normal route or perhaps she needed to take that route for some specific reason. She might have even needed to take that route by hook or by crook, which could be because of a host of reasons, one very plausible one being all other routes are even more heavily fortified or more risky. Then, of course, there is the question of fear. The reputation of torture and indiscriminate killing that the Israeli army has gathered over the last few years has instilled tremendous fear in the hearts of the common people. A lot of mistakes occur because of fear.

2. She was just 13. You have to consider that she might have had a little childish inquisitiveness of some kind. She might have wanted to do some silly thing that children often do, but those who are parents (I assume you are) love it when their children do them. They even record them on film. The so-called security concerned people might not have tried to find justification had it been their own daughter or son in that little girl;s position.

srirr wrote:

What if she was not innocent? What if she was a real threat? What if she could succeed in blowing up the post or any other area? Then the so-called huminatarians would not have raised their voice.


This is not the right way to think is it? As abc very aptly pointed out, just because you think someone is a pickpocket, you don't kill that or thrash that guy do you? It is this dangerous mentality that results in the terrible mob attacks in our country.
If there was doubt, there were ways to injure the girl. I am aware of the Israeli army's proficiency in technology and shooting and I am sure they have highly advanced weaponry or skills to take out a moving target so as only to injure it. She was 100 meters away and they did have clean shots.
However, I can't support that either. She was running away. It is still no logic. You spoke of her guilt which is preposterous. She can't be held guilty before being proven wrong. And since she was running away, she couldn't have been a terrorist in a mood for cold-blooded murder. In any case, the last resort should have been to injure her and then carefully check her. All such technology is available with Israel, so don't say it couldn't have been done.

Again, why don't the Israel army arm themselves with non-lethal rounds?? That is a good way to overpower 'suspects'.
abc was again right: the army DID want to kill her. I think the captain knew damn well that she was just making a childish mistake, but he wanted her to pay for it anyway. That was it.



srirr wrote:

I do not vouch for this. Suspects or established threat should not be allowed to run away. I will prioritize security first.


A danger may be not at present, but may be in future, in next attempts.
If a terrorist was in the question here, would you have said the same? Let the terrorist run away as he is not a danger at present. Ok fine, when he will come again as a danger, we will take care.
You'll say that she was not a terrorist. But remember, this could only be established after the actions were taken. If she was all allowed to run away, we might never know whether she was innocent or not.


This is again the same mob mentality thing. Just venting out the frustration and the hatred at the girl on part of the captain, that is it. No, she should not have been shot.
I said so in my previous post: if it were the case with Kashmir border and if an unarmed man were to be trespassing, then the person could be overpowered.

srirr wrote:


Close distance firing was done to confirm the kill. It is a common and accepted practice among all the security forces. If a target is shot from a distance first and it falls down, the forces should hit from the close range to confirm the kill.



I said that in reply to your observation 'But again, it is nowhere mentioned that these bullets were shot from a single rifle by a single soldier.'

worldsclyde
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 4:42:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 785
Neurons: 2,390
Location: Spokane, WA USA
I've talked about this in another thread. Some people kill because they enjoy killing. It is a sad human instinct. If you attempt to justify this for security needs just say the words. "Knowing what I know, I would have shot this girl in the back as she ran away". If you can say that we have no debate. We are just different.
HWNN1961
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 6:59:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,494
Neurons: 9,763
Ironic that this nation is being twisted into similar monsters as those that made the creation of Israel necessary in the first place.
Ellenrita
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 10:16:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/20/2010
Posts: 1,348
Neurons: 3,889
Location: CANADA - Toronto
HWNN1961 wrote:
Ironic that this nation is being twisted into similar monsters as those that made the creation of Israel necessary in the first place.



Yes, and the Iraelies seem to be unable to extricate themselves from making Palestine a concentration camp.
excaelis
Posted: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 11:10:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Unable or unwilling ?
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Thursday, September 2, 2010 2:55:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
excaelis wrote:
Unable or unwilling ?


Unwilling, hence unable.
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Thursday, September 2, 2010 7:12:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
Ellenrita wrote:
HWNN1961 wrote:
Ironic that this nation is being twisted into similar monsters as those that made the creation of Israel necessary in the first place.



Yes, and the Israelis seem to be unable to extricate themselves from making Palestine a concentration camp.


This is a very bold statment. Some of us may NOT like this at all. But no matter we like it or not we all know this is something what is/was done inside that barbed wire fence without rule of law.
srirr
Posted: Friday, September 3, 2010 12:15:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
Dear all,
I feel some of my fellow members are taking the point as Israel-Palestine conflict. (I may be wrong.) I will say don't think it like that. I am with
Margarit when she says, "Without trying to politicize this case ...". What are we discussing? Israel-Palestine difference or killing of 13 years old girl by some army personnel at a military base. Does it make any difference if it were any other enemy countries? I don't think so. If it is political discussion on Israel and Palestine, I would say they are at continuos war and killings happen in wars irrespective of age and sex. Are we discussing this? Then I should better say sorry.

If we are discussing the so-called inhumane behavior of armed guards at the checkpost/military base, I think we should really not politicize this.


Worldsclyde said:
If you attempt to justify this for security needs just say the words.

I appreciate the straightforwardness. And I declare that yes in my opinion, such killings can not be avoided for security reasons. You may differ from me, but as I said earlier, national security and integrity are far above emotional weaknesses, IMHO.

abcxyz and KM compared the incident with lynching of a pickpocket in the streets. What should I say now? I really have no words, because in my views there is no comparison. A sensitive issue of international matters and a pickpocketing! There is no comparison between a military shootout and mob-thrashing.
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Friday, September 3, 2010 4:13:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 225
Neurons: 920
srirr wrote:
Dear all,
I feel some of my fellow members are taking the point as Israel-Palestine conflict. (I may be wrong.) I will say don't think it like that. I am with
Margarit when she says, "Without trying to politicize this case ...". What are we discussing? Israel-Palestine difference or killing of 13 years old girl by some army personnel at a military base. Does it make any difference if it were any other enemy countries? I don't think so. If it is political discussion on Israel and Palestine, I would say they are at continuos war and killings happen in wars irrespective of age and sex. Are we discussing this? Then I should better say sorry.

If we are discussing the so-called inhumane behavior of armed guards at the checkpost/military base, I think we should really not politicize this.


Worldsclyde said:
If you attempt to justify this for security needs just say the words.

I appreciate the straightforwardness. And I declare that yes in my opinion, such killings can not be avoided for security reasons. You may differ from me, but as I said earlier, national security and integrity are far above emotional weaknesses, IMHO.

abcxyz and KM compared the incident with lynching of a pickpocket in the streets. What should I say now? I really have no words, because in my views there is no comparison. A sensitive issue of international matters and a pickpocketing! There is no comparison between a military shootout and mob-thrashing.


srirr,

This deliberate murderer act CONNOT be seen outside Israeli-Palestine contest. When I say to not politicize this issue I suggest that we should only judge the facts and the court decision of not charging captain R for what he did. But if you put a 13 year old girl approaching a war zone military post we inevitably end up politicizing the case considering her “the enemy” regardless her age. If this is the case than they probably can even promote the captain. All the facts and the timeline of her killing IMHO and judgment talk against the captain and Israeli Defense Force. Their mindset is: “Isolate and possibly eliminate them before you will be annihilated”.
srirr
Posted: Friday, September 3, 2010 4:40:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,353
If it is an Israel-Palestine case, I restate. I would say they are at continuos war and killings happen in wars irrespective of age and sex.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Friday, September 3, 2010 4:46:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
srirr wrote:
If it is an Israel-Palestine case, I restate. I would say they are at continuos war and killings happen in wars irrespective of age and sex.


That is true. But how does that make this particular incident (mishap) justifiable? If you go on to argue that if we are to condemn this act, we should do so others (irrespective of nationality), then to that I'd say 'Amen'.
Just because there is a war zone out there, does not mean we have to throw humanity out of the window.
And this issue is already a politicial one, so there is no question of making it so.

However, age cannot be ruled out of the equation. You cannot generalise everything, put them into a basket and hope they will turn out just fine. Doesn't happen that way. A child is much more likely to make mistakes.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.