Israeli sniper shoots peace activist in the face

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I usually don't like to say stuff like this, but... Shut the fuck up.

No.

 

If you want, I can sit and debate traditionally in 12 hours or so

No, thanks. I don't really care if your life is a mess, if your make-believe girlfriend just "left" you, if your mom spanked you, if you're drunk, sleepy, tired, or whatever. You're ranting like a moron, shrieking and sticking your fingers in your ears, so expect to be treated like one. If, in twelve hours, your IQ suddenly shoots up by 100 and your emotional maturity level rises by 40 years, I'll consider taking you up on that offer.

 

If I hear sniper fire and I'm clearly not armed and not shooting back, I should be allowed to get the fuck out of there without getting my skull perforated.

You shouldn't be in a war zone in the first place. Deliberately entering an area in which hostilities are ongoing and practically continuous is an explicit acceptance of the risk of serious injury and death. If you don't understand this elementary concept, you might want to follow your own boldfaced advice.

 

 

 

On a more general note, ta for now, children. I have a flight to catch shortly. It's true: I'm returning to the States.

Be afraid... be very afraid.

 

PS. Traffic here is fucking scary. Read this article to see what I'm talking about. 478 dead, 30 thousand injured... in just four days. And we fought a four-week war with what, something like 2.5% of that in casualties? Christ. They don't call it the Third World for nothing.

[Guest EricMM]

Um I guess I'll comment on this.

 

I'm afraid I think you all are giving a bit too much credit to the Israeli Army in terms of how much control they can have over their war.

 

The Israel/Palastine thing is the most dirty kind of fighting, or at least one of. The Israelis aren't fighting an identifyable foe so everytime they go out they have to on the look out for everyone who isn't Israeli/in an Israeli military outfit. Like Marney said, if they avoided shooting someone because they were wearing a orange vest they'd probably end up getting a grenade thrown at them or shot at at least.

 

Again I'm very sorry for every Palastinian who is stuck in this conflict, especially those who can't change it at all, which I assume is many/most of them.

 

But being in that area is fucking crazy to begin with. It IS an active war zone.

 

I mean on one hand it's good that he was trying to prevent a kid from being shot. But I mean you have to know that if you're trying to pull kids out of the crossfire of a fight you're risking your life. He risked his life and was unlucky enough to lose it.

[Guest ShooterJay]

Sorry, I didn't know there were other books by that name- it's a critical analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict-essays compiled by George D. Hanus. It's making it's rounds among the pro-Israel groups in Boston-area colleges (one of which I'm a member of.)

[Guest Powerplay]

Sorry, I didn't know there were other books by that name- it's a critical analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict-essays compiled by George D. Hanus. It's making it's rounds among the pro-Israel groups in Boston-area colleges (one of which I'm a member of.)

Oh, okay. I think the name "compendium" made it confusing, since there are compendiums on just about everything. I want to check out out now. Thanks, SJ.

[Guest evilhomer]

However, going there in the first place specifically in order to aid people who rejoice in death was not fine at all.

You seem to have read the article wrong, he didn't go there to aid the Israelis.

[Guest Powerplay]

However, going there in the first place specifically in order to aid people who rejoice in death was not fine at all.

You seem to have read the article wrong, he didn't go there to aid the Israelis.

Last time I checked it was the Palestinians dancing in the streets after September 11th and the Israelis being the first to guarentee they would help the Americans with whatever they asked. And hey, how many times do you see the Israelis dancing in the streets when they are forced to occupy Ramallah? Oh, none? Thought so.

[Guest evilhomer]

Just because you're not out there dancing in the streets doesn't mean that there's no joy in their actions.

[Guest Powerplay]

Just because you're not out there dancing in the streets doesn't mean that there's no joy in their actions.

That, or maybe they just don't take any joy in the situation at all. The Israelis didn't ask for the entire Arab world to hate them, nor do they take any pleasure in it. They don't occupy towns and bulldoze terrorist hideouts because it's the "new thing to make you look cool", they do it out of necessity for their country and their people to survive. Saying the Israelis take joy in killing people is utterly absurd. While I'm sure the Palestinians don't either, it is a lot easier to find open joy in the death of people than it is for the Israelis.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Spare me the shocked horror. Palestinians think it's funny to take pictures of their own infants dressed up in combat gear with miniature sticks of dynamite wrapped around their chests.

American kids never dress up as soldiers and play war. Parents never buy their infants camouflage clothing.

 

You make perfect logic.

[Guest Powerplay]

Spare me the shocked horror. Palestinians think it's funny to take pictures of their own infants dressed up in combat gear with miniature sticks of dynamite wrapped around their chests.

American kids never dress up as soldiers and play war. Parents never buy their infants camouflage clothing.

 

You make perfect logic.

Though they normally don't take pictures with their children strapped to explosives. I have a completely different reaction from a baby dressed up as a soldier and a baby dressed up to go into a crowd and blow themselves up so as to take as many civilians with them.

 

Secondly, the threat of someone actually doing this to a child, putting them in a carriage, and then detonating them in the middle of a crowd is far, far greater than the United States employing toddlers in the Army.

 

Nice logic there, eh?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Though they normally don't take pictures with their children strapped to explosives. I have a completely different reaction from a baby dressed up as a soldier and a baby dressed up to go into a crowd and blow themselves up so as to take as many civilians with them.

Baby dressed up like he's going to go out and kill others and maybe get killed? Good. Baby dressed up like he's going to go out and kill others and definitely get killed? Bad.

 

Got it. In other news, we should all hate on the Japanese.

[Guest Powerplay]

Though they normally don't take pictures with their children strapped to explosives. I have a completely different reaction from a baby dressed up as a soldier and a baby dressed up to go into a crowd and blow themselves up so as to take as many civilians with them.

Baby dressed up like he's going to go out and kill others and maybe get killed? Good. Baby dressed up like he's going to go out and kill others and definitely get killed? Bad.

 

Got it. In other news, we should all hate on the Japanese.

Hey, cool, you don't follow logic anymore! Amazing.

 

Because to reach that conclusion you'd have to be totally ignoring the whole problem in Israel and Palestine with suicide bombings. Is there a threat that we are suddenly going to start enlisting toddlers? No. On the other hand, is there the possibility that Islamic fanatics are willing to strap explosives to toddlers so as to be able to sneak around with a living bomb while not outwardly looking suspicious.

 

I like how you say both are dressed to kill, yet don't mention which one of them is far more likely to be used in that fashion. Though some people tend to ignore stuff like that .

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Because to reach that conclusion you'd have to be totally ignoring the whole problem in Israel and Palestine with suicide bombings. Is there a threat that we are suddenly going to start enlisting toddlers? No. On the other hand, is there the possibility that Islamic fanatics are willing to strap explosives to toddlers so as to be able to sneak around with a living bomb while not outwardly looking suspicious.

They don't do that, last I checked.

 

I like how you say both are dressed to kill, yet don't mention which one of them is far more likely to be used in that fashion. Though some people tend to ignore stuff like that

 

Divide the number of suicide bombers by the the Palestinian population. Divide the number of Americans who have killed during wartime by the American population. What do you notice?

[Guest Powerplay]

They don't do that, last I checked.

But it's certainly not beyond to do that.

 

Divide the number of suicide bombers by the the Palestinian population. Divide the number of Americans who have killed during wartime by the American population. What do you notice?

 

Again, the comparison isn't the same. Which is more likely to happen: That toddler being used by Hamas as a bomb or the United States sending Toddlers in as troops. Are you like devoid of the ability to look at things in context? The toddler being dressed up as a suicide/homicide bomber isn't the same as a kid dressing up as a soldier, simply because what each represents.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Aside from the pregnant women who blew herself up at an Iraqi checkpoint a few weeks ago (which shocked me), I know of no cases of children used as suicide bombers. Brainwashed teens? Yes. But toddlers? No. It'd be nice to stop dealing with "if's" for once.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Muslim children in the Mideast are being taught at an earlier age that the Jews are evil and they should be killed. That sticks with a kid until he's a teenager that's when they start becoming suicide bombers. But the potential for an even younger homicide bomber is greater know than its ever been.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But it's certainly not beyond to do that.

If that's true, why haven't they done it?

[Guest Powerplay]

But it's certainly not beyond to do that.

If that's true, why haven't they done it?

Why use toddlers when you can use pregnant women, I suppose. Same thing, just killing the child AND the mother at the same time.

 

Though your comparing a child dressing up as a suicide bomber to one dressing up as a soldier defies all logic. One is dressed up as a figure that inhibits peace in an unstable region by killing innocent civilians by detonating one's self in the middle of packed civilian centers. The other is dressed up as someone who defends the peace and freedom around the world. Then again, if you want to travel the path that Dreamer took with Moral Relativism, go right ahead.

 

To ask, does this argument have a point?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

No, thanks. I don't really care if your life is a mess, if your make-believe girlfriend just "left" you, if your mom spanked you, if you're drunk, sleepy, tired, or whatever. You're ranting like a moron, shrieking and sticking your fingers in your ears, so expect to be treated like one. If, in twelve hours, your IQ suddenly shoots up by 100 and your emotional maturity level rises by 40 years, I'll consider taking you up on that offer.

Oh yeah, it's MY fault that you said something stupid.

 

IQ and maturity boosts won't help if you're too warped to see how your own insulting remarks, dripping with irrational extremist 'logic', were anything but a "reasoned argument" or witty banter which could easily be blown off as though it were nothing.

 

To quote They Might Be Giants: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

 

His specific action was fine, obviously. Any moral and decent human being would have done exactly the same. However, going there in the first place specifically in order to aid people who rejoice in death was not fine at all.

 

Not everyone there rejoices in death. Xenophobic blanket statements like these are why your earlier posts in this thread have drawn so much ire. Certainly the victim in this case went there to stand up for those there who he saw that valued human life far more than the sniper who shot him. Which is why his death is all the more tragic.

 

On a more general note, ta for now, children. I have a flight to catch shortly. It's true: I'm returning to the States.

Be afraid... be very afraid.

 

Although I still don't know exactly what you do, I just pray it's not related to foreign policy.

[Guest Anorak]

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Certainly the victim in this case went there to stand up for those there who he saw that valued human life far more than the sniper who shot him. Which is why his death is all the more tragic.

You don't even know why the Sniper fired on this guy. Don't assume that this idiot human shield was anymore moral than the Isreali soldier.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No, thanks. I don't really care if your life is a mess...

Oh yeah, it's MY fault that you said something stupid.

This was a clear reference to your statement that you were incapable of "[debating] traditionally" in your emotional state on April 17 at 0502 hours.

 

IQ and maturity boosts won't help if you're too warped...

Might help you argue your point of view in a calm and sensible manner. Not that I think that's possible.

 

To quote They Might Be Giants: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Channelling cfici rarely helps anyone.

 

Not everyone there rejoices in death.

The vast majority do, and those who do not remain silent. They are guilty of enabling if nothing else.

 

Xenophobic blanket statements like these are why your earlier posts in this thread have drawn so much ire

Xenophobic? Yes, I suppose I am. I despise cultures which glorify suicide, genocide, and terrorism. I believe that they should be eradicated from the face of the earth, along with the vile religion that glorifies those who subscribe to them as "martyrs."

 

the victim in this case went there to stand up for those there who he saw that valued human life far more than the sniper who shot him. Which is why his death is all the more tragic

Wail over this supposedly "tragic" death all you want. Consider your conjectures about his opinions absolute truth if you wish. The rest of us will suspend judgement and wait for the facts, at least some of which contradict B-X's assumption that Hurndall was an innocent bystander with nowhere else to go: the fact that he died next to another so-called "shield," which indicates that his presence there was part of something organised, and the fact that he was wearing that despicable orange jacket, which you seem to feel should make him a walking safe haven for anyone in his immediate area, as well as completely invulnerable to stray bullets, shrapnel, and all the chaos normally found in A WAR ZONE.

 

I have to wonder how incidents like this will affect Palestinian strategy. After all, they don't have any qualms about using ambulances as munitions caches and car bombs, so I can't imagine it will be too long before suicide bombers start wearing orange jackets themselves.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm not going to make direct replies to anyone yet until I can compose something that doesn't come off foolishly (which happens pretty often at night) but here's something interesting:

 

Before he left Tom had spoken in favour of Israeli intervention in Palestine. "On the way to the airport to fly out to Baghdad he was discussing the situation in Israel and he was arguing in favour of the Israelis' political position," Mrs Hurndall said.

 

It looks like someone other than an activist saw this, although for some reason the Reuters report it as a tank:

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...human_shields_3

 

Friday's shooting of 21-year-old Tom Hurndall from Manchester, England, was witnessed by a photographer on assignment for The Associated Press.

 

A dozen activists walked toward Israeli tanks on the outskirts of the Rafah refugee camp, near the border with Egypt. They wanted to set up a tent in an attempt to block Israeli military incursions and were joined by several children, said photographer Khalil Hamra. The Israelis troops were firing toward a group of people and children, Hamra said. When Hurndall was tried to get two children out of the line of fire a tank opened fire and shot him in the head, Hamra said.

 

As for how you are supposed to tell human shields, here's a link to a GORY, NOT SAFE FOR WORK picture of Tom Hurndall with his head wound and his BRIGHT ORANGE JACKET.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../168/3rsmy.html

 

A person should not fire a gun if they cannot identify their target as friend or foe.

When your targets INTENTIONALLY disguise themselves as civilians --- you don't have the TIME to ask "friend or foe"?

 

Blame the sub-human monkey terrorists.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Just because you're not out there dancing in the streets doesn't mean that there's no joy in their actions.

Well, fortunately, Israel leaves some question as to their emotional state.

 

The Palestinians were pretty darned clear.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

When your targets INTENTIONALLY disguise themselves as civilians --- you don't have the TIME to ask "friend or foe"?

Yes, because SO many civilians wear BRIGHT ORANGE VESTS. And so do the people trying to slip into the Israeli society. I mean, that doesn't draw attention to themselves at any way at all.

 

 

And I'll be back for Marney's post later, I have a weekend to enjoy before I agonize on a debate forum.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm shakin'.

[Guest B-X]

Blame the sub-human monkey terrorists.

-=Mike

Hooray.

 

Racism.

[Guest EricMM]

Yes, because SO many civilians wear BRIGHT ORANGE VESTS. And so do the people trying to slip into the Israeli society. I mean, that doesn't draw attention to themselves at any way at all.

 

The thing is, a pretty sizable portion of this conflict is an emotional/political one, especially on the side of the Palastinians who don't have the might to win conventionally. They have to make it seem like they're being held in some sort of apartheid program. And I mean, they ARE repressed, but where to do you draw the line between oppressed and punished? They show their plight to the world trying to draw sympathy because they are unable to actually beat the Israeli at anything.

 

Anyways, the main point is, part of this campagin would easily be dressing up people as "Human Shields" and have them shoot at Israeli soldiers. Then when they get killed, they'd really be victims of Israeli oppression and murder. Like they say about every other man, women, and child killed in this conflict.

 

And for the N'th time let me say that if the Palastinians went a full year without performing terrorist actions, this thing would END! If they went the rest of their lives without doing terrorist actions, they might actually make something for themselves. But something, something STUPID drives them to make this conflict continue. There is no profit to the Israelis to bulldozing a few houses. They're merely doing it to protect themselves.

 

I hope you enjoy your weekend

[Guest Powerplay]

Blame the sub-human monkey terrorists.

        -=Mike

Hooray.

 

Racism.

Hooray.

 

Someone who didn't read the post fully.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Might help you argue your point of view in a calm and sensible manner. Not that I think that's possible.

I've been sensible for much of this thread. The only place where I wasn't "sensible" was when I was reacting to your post where you said the "miserable 'human shield'" was only saving a couple of children whose mother would make them into suicide bombers and promising to discuss it with you later. Don't try to project your own shortcomings onto other people, especially if they don't even apply.

 

The vast majority do, and those who do not remain silent. They are guilty of enabling if nothing else.

 

I personally despise racists who write off entire cultures on the actions of some crackpot extremists while applying ridiculous double-standards of what qualifies as a "glorifying death" myself, but that's just me I suppose.

 

Wail over this supposedly "tragic" death all you want. Consider your conjectures about his opinions absolute truth if you wish. The rest of us will suspend judgement and wait for the facts, at least some of which contradict B-X's assumption that Hurndall was an innocent bystander with nowhere else to go:

 

In other words, even though you don't have any substantial facts to back any of this up, you're still going to go into desperate tinfoil speculation to save face.

 

At this point, it may well be that he was a combatant, or that it was an accident, or that he was the target of a deliberate attack. However, the information we have so far seems to point towards the accident or deliberate attack scenarios, though that may change if we get something more substantial.

 

the fact that he died next to another so-called "shield," which indicates that his presence there was part of something organised,

 

I quote one of the articles: "The shooting occurred when Thomas was joining his international fellow activists in Rafah, to perform their regular activities to protect Palestinians in areas in which they face severe harassment from Israeli troops."

 

There's no secret about him being around fellow activists at the time of the shooting. If you're attempting to claim that they slapped a jacket on the body and posed the body for a photo op, that's even more implausible, especially considering how he wasn't even dead until he arrived at the hospital. Which also means that it's more likely that no one (these people being his personal friends and fellow activists, of course) would've moved his body for fear of killing him before rescue arrived.

 

and the fact that he was wearing that despicable orange jacket, which you seem to feel should make him a walking safe haven for anyone in his immediate area, as well as completely invulnerable to stray bullets, shrapnel, and all the chaos normally found in A WAR ZONE.

 

Where did I, or anyone else in this thread, ever try to claim that his jacket would make him immune to being a perceived threat, or to stray fire? I said, based on the initial information that if a sniper is firing into a crowd, those who are not armed and not firing back shouldn't be intentionally targeted. We've now found out that the fire was from a tank. We don't know if it was accidental, intentional, meant for someone else, or what.

 

You're making a very weak strawman attack here.

 

Besides, if he was considered a threat, even if he was wearing an orange jacket, the defense report listed him in "tiger fatigues." Why didn't they list him in "bright orange vest"?