http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=461648 Mahmud, 10, went looking for songbirds ... and died in hail of bullets By Justin Huggler in Shajiyeh, Gaza Strip 08 November 2003 Mahmud al-Qayed was out doing what he did every Friday - catching songbirds in cages to sell in the markets of Gaza. But yesterday the remote olive groves where the birds nest led him close to the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel. Too close for the soldiers guarding the fence. They shot Mahmud, 10, four times, killing him as he tried to run. The boy's father, Mohammed, was with him, and, at the funeral, he told how he took the bloodstained sweater from his son's dead body, and buried his face in it. Mahmud was one of a group of about 20 - the rest were adults - who ventured out to the fence to catch the songbirds, which can fetch good money in the markets. There are plenty of witnesses who saw the group on their way to the fence, and confirm that they were there to catch birds. But the Israeli army said that it had spotted three people laying what it says were electric wires and tubes used in explosives, and that is why it opened fire. According to the witnesses, what the group were laying were the cages that trap the birds. This was not the first time a birdcatcher has been killed next to the fence here. Mahmud was the fifth to die here since the intifada began in 2000. He was the youngest, but before him a 15-year-old and a 13- year-old had also been killed. It is a beautiful spot, narrow lanes fringed by tall cactus lead to the largely undisturbed olive groves that are home to the songbirds. In these autumn nights, the air is full of the smoke of the woodfires that warm the locals. But on the other side of the fence may be seen a completely different landscape of vast, open modern fields and the Israeli farm town of Nakhal Oz, which in the past has been a target for attacks by Palestinian militants. The Israeli army has declared the olive groves in this area off-limits to Palestinians, to protect Nakhal Oz. But, in spite of the danger, the birdcatchers still come. Money and work are desperately scarce, and what was once a hobby has become, for many, a living. Last week, said Mahmud's father, the boy managed to catch two song- sparrows and a rare songbird, a khudr. In normal times, this rare bird alone could fetch almost 100. In the current economic collapse, the boy sold all three for less than 10. But it was still enough to buy himself a new bicycle, and not many children can afford those in Gaza these days. A witness, who would give his name only as Abu Subhi, who lives near the olive groves and saw the birdcatchers on their way to plant their traps, says the Israeli soldiers should be well aware that the birdcatchers still come and are no threat. He says some visit the groves almost every day. Last night the Israeli army insisted that the only reason for Palestinians to move close to the fence was to attack Nakhal Oz. Surrounded by mourners at the funeral, Mahmud's father, Mohammed, told how his son had been killed. "We left home at around 5am. My neighbour, my son and I," he said. "I was driving the donkey-cart. We got to Shajiyeh at around 6am. We put out our traps and waited for the birds. We were about 700 metres from the border. They [Israeli forces] fired two shells, that landed near the electricity pylon, about 200 metres from us. We stayed on the ground because we were waiting for the birds. Then we saw five soldiers approaching with helmets and everything. I ran. My son could not get away." Nimur abu 'As'us, a 26-year-old who was with the group, was wounded and witnessed Mahmud's death. Speaking from a hospital bed, he said: "The soldiers chased us. I was running, the boy was running too. They shot at both of us. I was hit in the leg. They hit him with four bullets. They shouted to stop and he stopped. I kept running, I looked back and I saw him stop. I saw the bullets hit him. If he hadn't stopped perhaps they would have killed both of us." His face grew dark. "Perhaps the fact he stopped saved my life." After that, he said, a crowd of Palestinians came running to see what was happening and the soldiers gave up the chase. At first, Mr 'As'us said, the soldiers took Mahmud's body away, then later returned it. Mohammed said: "I took his sweater. I hugged it, then I buried my face in his blood. It was wrong to kill him. He was young, he was no threat, he just wanted to catch a bird. Where are the human rights? Where are the children's rights? "They kill children. That is wrong."92 responses total.
Peace will come only when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel.
wow....that's sad.
Yep, during wartime bad things happen. This is nothing new, has been going on for awhile now. In the specific individual case it is no less sad. The kid looked like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and was in a flock of what looked like ducks to a group of yids (rhymes) hunting for ducks and he got shot. No surprise there. Make no mistake, this is wartime there. WHen the author of #0 enters an item about the 10 year old yid (rhyme) who dies during a homicide bombing by the PLA kid with equal evocative detail then (s)he will at least seem evenhanded but even then what is the f-ing point? War is not good for small children? Well, duh! During a war people die? No duh! I mean, why is this even news? Duh!
other: how dare you libel Mahmud's parents before they've even put their son in the earth.
bad parents - failed t teach your children well ... sad, very sad
tsty: did your parents teach you not to go near fences, for fear of being shot by a tank?
His parents if they were smart and if they lived near fences where one would be shot dead by a tank for going near if they was at all interested in raising children instead of 'martyrs' probably would have taught him such about what when he began to walk. Its not rocket science you know. The Yids shoot at what looks like ducks so don't look like a duck. Duh. Think of it as evolution in action.
resp:1 - I cant believe those Palestinians hated their kid so much that they made him get shot by Israeli soldiers just because it would mean bad press?
This response has been erased.
pvn: if your daughter went outside and got raped, who would you blame? Wouldn't you blame yourself? Afterall, outside's where girls get raped.
"Outside" is pretty big and one's odds of being raped pretty low. Would pvn let his daughter walk alone at night in some dark corner of Central Park? I don't think so. Let me remind you of the words of Shimon Peres, formerly a Prime Minister of Israel and most recently the foreign minister: || In war, mistakes will happen. || But the greatest mistake is in going to war. Obviously, Lynne, we can't speak specifically about the parents of this child. It may well have been tragic. But recall the episode of 12-year-old intifada poster-boy Mohammed al-Dura? We may never know if his father was in on it, but evidence suggests that the child's murder was staged in front of TV cameras in an effort to frame Israel. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/06/fallows.htm Then there are the parents who upon the death of one child express the hope that all their children will become martyrs. And PA ads on official government TV, showing forged film footage depicting al-Dura being intentionally shot by Israeli troops, his voice calling out for other children to put down their toys in favor of weapons and join him. And editorials in official papers saying that those who oppose the use of children in the struggle are traitors who should be treated as "collaborators". School textbooks don't mention the peace process, don't show Israel on the map (it's all "Palestine"), and repeat the mantra that Israel must be destroyed and that the only good Jew is a dead Jew (OK, I'm slightly exaggerating on the last). [www.edume.org] Is it any wonder that some 10-year olds pick up a rusty old rifle and go to attack Israelis? That these children are then shot by Israeli troops who don't know that the rifle won't fire and who don't know if the child is booby-trapped with explosives to be detonated if they use non-lethal force? Can the adults really claim that he did this of his own volition? (As if this just goes to show us how horrible is the Israeli "oppression"?) Let me tell you another "non-secret". Most of the "militants" are in their teenage years or early 20s. For most of the last 10 years they've lived under the dictatorship of Arafat (Israel had withdrawn from the areas where 98% of the Arab population of the disputed territories resides). Their formative years were not under Israeli "occupation" or "oppression" and these are not the "root causes" for their terrorism.
Wow.
lk, maybe you should have read the next month's issue of the Atlantic, in which a debunking of the al-Dura (God bless his soul) article is published.
Let me see ... Al-Qaeda declares war on the US. Al-Qaeda bombs US. People get killed. Who's to blame?? Ofcourse, the people. They should know better, its wartime there!!! Why are they going to offices, schools or public places?? The point is that a Palestinian civilian death is as deplorable as an Israeli or US. And the killers as guilty.
This response has been erased.
Yes, sj2, any death is deplorable and tragic and every innocent life is worth as much as any other. But there is no comparison between terrorists who premeditatively murder as many innocents as they can and a soldier who in error mistakes a civilian for a terrorist and shoots him dead. But what you say is complete nonsense. That people shouldn't go to work or school (or stay home?) because it's war. Terrorism takes war to the people. That's why Israelis aren't safe anywhere. Not at home, not at school, not at work, not at malls, cafes, restaurants or clubs. Nor riding buses or driving between these locations. By your "logic", all Israelis should live in locked bomb-shelters. The same cannot be said about Palestinian Arabs. With only a few exceptions, they are safe at all of these places. There is a well demarcated and known front for the war. Which is why the majority of Israeli deaths have been civilians who were murdered while the majority of Arab deaths have been militants engaged in hostile action. It's why Israeli deaths represent a cross-section of the populace (women, children, and elderly) while these groups are severely under-represented (about 1/10th the statistical number) among Arab deaths. Today, a Palestinian lawmaker admitted that the PA funds the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to the tune of $50,000 per month, indicating that this terrorism, taking war to the people, has been official PA policy. Is anyone surprised?
lk, he was being sarcastic, which is better than you being disingenous.
one-note samba
For the record, I will clarify that I was being sarcastic, lk. Civilians should be able to go about their lives. Whether its lazing in cafes by the roadside or trapping birds for their livelihood. The majority of palestinian deaths have been of so-called militants. Who's to judge?? I guess only Israelis armed forces!!
Sorry, I've heard that stated seriously too often to take it as sarcasm. Who is to judge? Look at the names/sexes and ages of the dead, even as broken down by such organizations as Betselem. Only about 5% of the Arab casualties are female and only about 5% are children 14 and under, yet each of these groups represent (a partially overlapping) 50% of the population. As I've pointed out before, despite the 3:1 death ratio between Arabs and Israelis, more than 3x as many Israeli women have been killed than Arab women (in raw numbers!!), meaning that as a percentage this factor is about 10x. Again, the Israeli deaths nearly approximate a cross-section of the population -- precisely because Israelis are killed randomly. Yet Arab casualties are mostly men aged 17-30. Clearly this isn't happening because Israel is randomly shelling Arab villages (it's not). Nor is it merely a coincidence that this group has a very high correlation with those involved in terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. I just checked the statistics. From 27-Sep-2000 through 03-Nov-2003, there were 85 Arab female non-combatants killed compared to 268 Israeli women. Looking at the elderly (>=45), there were 80 Arab non-combatants killed and 218 Israelis killed. Which is too many people being killed any way you slice it, but that shouldn't cloud us as to who is being killed by whom.
Who is to judge whether they really were terrorists?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
My question is does the Israeli police get any Israeli court to issue arrest warrants for these suspects? Do they present any evidence to a court of law proving their terrorist activities? If a person is killed by Israeli security forces, what is the process by which he/she was convicted and executed?
either gunfire or rocket fire .. pay attentin to the news ....
Re #24: I'd guess the same process by which Israelis who are killed by suicide bombers are convicted.
This response has been erased.
Is it any wonder that people gripped by the type of hate evidenced by Leeron have absolutely no compunction about murdering children? The difference between a typical death of a Palestinian child, at the hands of an Israeli sniper, and that of Mohammad al-Dura, is that absent media attention people like Leeron feel no need to lie about what happened. With media attention, as Leeron demonstrated, they'll present the most absurd and transparent lies and propaganda. Hate speech.
Let me put it in a different way. The police in your neighbourhood busts into a home and kills the residents. They later claim that the residents were guilty of murder and hence executed. Is that ok?
Re #27, Mohammed Al-Badr Al-Bishara from the Islamic council of Jehad sends you a suicide bomber. So where does this end?
sj2 asks in #21: > Who is to judge whether they really were terrorists? If they're armed and on the front, that makes it pretty easy, no? He clarifies in #24 that he's only talking about the targeted killings and asks if the courts are involved The Israeli Army usually first attempts to arrest wanted men (If you read item 17, you'll see that these arrests happen nearly every day, though they are so frequent that I've stopped reporting them). This isn't possible in many circumstances since these terrorists are being harbored by the PA. In those instances, the Army presents its case to the Court and gets an authorization to kill the enemy combatant behind enemy lines. But you've already gone down this line of questions and I've already responded. See item 83 resp 72. In #26, gull again demonstrates that absent any evidence he's always willing to assume the worst about Israel and the best about terrorists. I usually try to ignore Aaron (since he has little to contribute other than ad hominems directed at me), but the logic in his #28 is so backward that it deserves special mention: > Is it any wonder that people gripped by the type of hate evidenced by > Leeron have absolutely no compunction about murdering children? First of all, I think no one but Aaron believes his lie that I hate Arabs. Second, even IF I did, would that explain why terrorists murder children? Despite Aaron's implication, Israel does not murder children. As I'm sure Aaron knows, murder implies intent. The terrorist who kills children hiding under their bed covers at point blank range is guilty of murder. An Israeli soldier returning fire at a mob in which children are (intentionally*) present is not. * Note that the PA cancelled school so children could be present, with teachers and others providing transportation. It was in response to this that some within the PA complained -- but they were silenced by the editor of an official PA paper who opined that such complaints are treason and that the complainers should be dealt with as "collaborators" if they don't watch what they say.
This response has been erased.
Israel's quite willing to use women and children as shields, as demonstrated by them bull-dozing houses.
>First of all, I think no one but Aaron believes his lie that I hate Arabs. I believe, although I've yet to get you to admit that all your arguments point to irrational, violent Arabs as the sole source of all problems in the situation.
Given that your purpose in these items is to needle me (as you once admitted and as your current outburst proves), I don't think anyone really cares what you think especially given your inability to address issues. Your great contribution to this topic was an unattributed cut-and-pasting from electricintifada, but in the 2 years since you have been unable to address the objections I raised to that propaganda. Can't you go beyond such twittish behavior?
Nope, wrong. My *purpose* here is to carry on a discussion/argument. My *strategy* is to needle you, to keep after your inconsistencies without falling into the trap of trying to generate huge amounts of text.
My point in #26 was that people are always asking how Israel makes sure they aren't killing innocents, but never seem to bat an eye when innocents are killed by Palastinians. The fact that lk automatically assumed I was making some kind of anti-Israeli commentary speaks volumes about his prejudices about me. He decided at some point that I was an anti-Semite, and now reads everything I post with that mental filter in place.
You're an anti-semite?
Scott, if you could address the issues of discussion then you wouldn't be relegated to a strategy of being a twit. (With each response you prove that unable to discuss the issues, you attack me. Consider that a challenge to discuss the issues.) > Re #24: I'd guess the same process by which Israelis who are killed by > suicide bombers are convicted. David, I don't see how #26 can be read this way. The implication is that Israelis are "convicted" by terrorists who attempt to murder as many civilians as possible in the "same process" that terrorists are chosen for targetted killings. The comparison is odious at every level. Let me spell it out for you: Terrorists have no process. Their aim is to kill as many innocents as they can. This is a gross violation of international law. Israel does have a process. Its aim is to kill those terrorists who are being harbored by the PA and which it cannot arrest (and with minimal loss of civilian lives). This action is within the confines of international law.
There was a certain amount of sarcasm at work. But I see your "anyone who doesn't agree with me fully is an anti-semite" filter is still fully switched in, so I'm not going to bother with trying to continue this.
useful pointer.
Re #31, what happens to these arrested suspects? Are they afforded lawyers? Are they presented to a military court or a civilian court? Ofcourse, anyone carrying a weapon and pointing it at you in battlefield is liable to getting killed. Same goes for violent mobs. Can you point me to some links where it is reported that cases against suspects are presented to a court which then issues a warrant for their arrest (targetted killings)? Are suspects in PA controlled territory warned of being fired at if they do not surrender? (Example a helicopter gunship firing missiles at a car).
This response has been erased.
Leeron always seems to compare the activities of the terrorist organisations when asked about Israel's excesses. Is the Israeli Army the equivalent of the Hamas?? The point is that the Israeli Army will always be expected to conform to higher standards when it comes to human rights and use of force. http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/mena5.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Many civilians were among the over seven hundred Palestinians and over two hundred Israelis who, by November 2001, had been killed in the violence that followed the eruption of clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in September 2000. In addition, some 16,000 Palestinians and some 1,700 Israelis were injured in the violence. The conflict was marked by attacks on civilians and civilian objects by both Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups. Both Israeli and Palestinian authorities failed to take the necessary steps to stop the security forces under their control from committing abuses, and failed to adequately investigate and punish the perpetrators. Israeli security forces were responsible for extensive abuses, including indiscriminate and excessive use of lethal force against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators; unlawful or suspicious killings by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers; disproportionate IDF gunfire in response to Palestinian attacks; inadequate IDF response to abuses by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians; and "closure" measures on Palestinian communities that amounted to collective punishment. They also mounted a series of killings of suspected Palestinian militants under a controversial "liquidations" policy directed against those they claimed to be responsible for orchestrating attacks against Israelis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This response has been erased.
Four former Israeli security service chiefs have launched a scathing attack on the government's handling of the peace process with the Palestinians. The men called for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and dismantle Jewish settlements, or face "disaster". Their comments follow remarks last month by Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, who said Israeli measures have generated anger among Palestinians. Israeli government officials called the men's criticisms naive. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3270491.stm ------------------------------------------------------------------- They weren't naive when they were in active duty??
The difference isn't in long term objectives but how to get there from here. Israel is displaying a healthy difference of opinion that is typical in a democracy. Where are the opposing voices to Arafat? With whom is Israel to "unilaterally" make peace? In addition, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would be a violation of the Oslo Accords. Tell me, when fighting between Arab factions errupted into civil war, does anyone not believe that this will be faulted on Israel? Would the same voices calling for such a withdrawal not then criticize Israel for doing so and creating a vacuum which it should have known would lead to more war and bloodshed?
Having a healthy democracy is appreciable but irrelevant. It does not answer the issues that have been raised by five senior security officials. And you ducked #44.
We find it ludicrous to suggest that a negotiator with any modicum of common sense or historical perspective, particularly when dealing with fanatical Arabs, ought to unilaterally give away its bargaining chips for absolutely nothing in return. Besides leaving Israel with reduced capacity to bargain, it would certainly embolden the Arabs as it has in the past - Lebanon being a case in point. Observers must use some intelligence in these matters.
and yuu equate 'boservers' with 'negotiators'? .... i don't think so.!! /
20:34 U.S. troops shoot dead three Iraqis, including boy, 11 I'm sure that Aaron can explain this as due to American hatred of Iraqis. As if it has nothing to do with the situation wherein terrorists/insurgents/guerrillas disguised as civilians launch a hundred or two attacks on US forces each week. While Americans know that there are some kooks (like the murderer of an Indian Seikh in Arizona as payback for 9-11 and white supremacist groups), and while we understand that some of these kooks may serve in the armed forces, we also understand that if this is the case that the Army will investigate and punish the perpetrator. Yet the odds are that this was a tragic incident. That it was not a hate-filled American soldier expressing the wishes of a hate-filled American society by intentionally shooting a child. So it is in Israel. Again, the fact that the number of children killed is much lower (by an order of magnitude!) than expected from the statistical cross-section shows not only that Israel doesn't target children but that it takes efforts to avoid such casualties.
(The weird analogies hit an entirely new nadir...)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7C2224BE-FF53-43FA-858C- 3D32A15300EA.htm Three Iraqis - including a child - have been shot dead by US troops in the capital while two occupation soldiers were killed in attacks north of Baghdad. The three Iraqis were killed on Monday at Baghdad s gun market when US soldiers mistook gunfire of customers testing weapons for an attack. According to Iraqi police, the dead included an 11-year-old boy, while four others were also wounded. The apparently mistaken shooting of civilians began when a group of Iraqis were testing a gun in the market by firing it in the air, said Major Ali Rykan of the Iraqi police. As they shot, four US armoured cars passed by, Rykan said. At least two US soldiers opened fire on the market, killing the three, said Rykan and Hashem Naim Muhammad, a witness. His 11-year-old nephew, Akil Hussain Naim, was among the dead. The shooting took place at the Mraydi market, a three-kilometre-long market that is famous in Baghdad as a place where one can buy guns. In Iraq, it is legal for a family to own one gun for self-defence. ===================================================================== Given recent attacks on US troops, they must be really edgy (although opening fire on a market is *BAD*). After all, everyone loves their life. But a bunch of people firing guns in your vicinity is very different from a small group of un-armed bird-catchers. Lame analogy, lk.
Yet as indicated, these bird-catchers were laying their bird traps and wires in a military area where bombs are placed on a regular basis (see item 17. Yesterday 2 road-side bombs (20 and 30 KG) were discovered and detonated by sappers). In other cases, children have been shot dead during the exchange of live fire with terrorists (not people firing into the air in a market). And in others, the children who were shot dead by the IDF were themselves perpetrating hostile acts (throwing grenades or firebombs, infiltration attempts). The overarching explanation of one or two people here is that Israeli soldiers shoot these children because they hate them (as is, ostensibly, evidenced by my "hatred"). My point is that this "reasoning" would be just as valid in this case (Americans hating/shooting Iraqi children). And that the statistics don't support this theory.
Re #52: The only thing weird is your lack of comprehension of the obvious. Or maybe not so weird, given your blatant prejudice.
You guys don't find it weird that there is an operating "gun Market" in an occupied country?
Ohh!! So the occupied country's people should just give up buying arms for self-protection even after the high rise in crime post-occupation?? Re #54, It does not show that the soldiers murdered them out of hatred but that the soldiers are so high strung that they have little regard for human rights. And they will readily kill anyone even remotely suspected of being a terrorist. Its called fear not hatred.
No, not "anyone even remotely suspected of being a terrorist", but rather "anyone suspected of firing on them."
Mr. sj2 fails to note that the so-called "gun market" was illegal and had been previously shut down several times. One would think that this information would be common knowledge and it would take little sense to realize the firing of guns might very well be interpreted by U.S. troops as very threatening behavior. (Perhaps these people are vying for a Darwin award?)
re56: does that apply to american indian reservations as well, dipstick?
Re 54: The more obvious and likely "overaching explanation" is that the kids put bird traps in military areas... because they have no non-military areas available.
That's "obvious and likely"? What's your basis for saying that? Or is it your prejudice once again making you assume what you should prove? Facts: The "West Bank" contains 5,640 sq km of land (an additional 220 sq km are covered by water). The border with Israel is 307 km. Assuming 50m on each side of the fence (if it ran along the entire border, which it doesn't), that's 31 sq km. I wonder if Scott can explain why the other 5609 sq km area is inadequate for catching birds. So your statement is akin to saying that kids play in the middle of Washtenaw... because they have no parks in which to play. Which in turn raises a different question. What would you think of parents, indeed a society, that sent its children to play in the middle of the street so that it can then accuse drivers of intentionally running them over?
Don't forget to add population figures, Leeron. And don't forget that despite the HUGE SIZE of the West Bank, Israel is apparently able to afford an elaborate fence along the entire border...
Population is 2.2 million, double the density of Micronesia, and roughly the same as Belgium's. Scott, did you forget to tell us the basis of your assumption that masqueraded as a conclusion -- and why the other 5600 sq km is not adequate for catching birds? Are we to understand that it was your prejudice talking? Is that your contribution to this item?
Re #59, lk, you brought up the Iraq issue. Remember, the original post was about Israeli troops in Palestine and not US troops in Iraq? And you still haven't responded to #42 and #44. OT - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/7.htm http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000633.php
Re 64: Leeron, we're all aware of your hatred for the Palestinians. But despite your portrayals of them as irrational, violent, idiots, they do in fact have a fairly normal way of life. This includes the concept of property rights. It's not like they're all living at random in a vast unoccupied area, free to cultivate or hunt any spot which suits their fancy.
> we're all aware of your hatred for the Palestinians. Scott reinforces that he's in this not to discuss issues and events but to launch such ad hominem attacks. Twit! > despite your portrayals of them as irrational, violent, idiots, they do in > fact have a fairly normal way of life. Ditto. I've never portrayed them as "irrational" nor "idiots". There is little doubt that they believe in and support violent solutions. The PLO Covenant still rejects non-violent solutions. > It's not like they're all living at random in a vast unoccupied area, > free to cultivate or hunt any spot which suits their fancy. They live exactly where they used to live prior to the legal Israeli administration of the area following the 1967 war. They are free to cultivate and hunt on their property except where, due to legitimate security concerns, certain areas are off limits. The "It's the 'occupation', stupid" line really doesn't work given that there was murderous violence directed against Israel prior to 1967, for all the same reasons. Ending the violence would produce peace, mutual co-existance. The Arab terrorists are against that (and openly state so). I added the population figures as per your request. Were you surprised that the population density is similar to Beligium? I assume you expected something totally different and that was the reason you asked. Did you learn something? Perhaps now you can finally share with us the basis of unwarranted assumption/conclusion? Why is the other 5600 sq km insufficient for catching birds such that parents send their children to do so in a restricted military area where they can (and have been) mistaken for terrorists laying mines? Does anyone really believe that the area adjacent to the security fence is better for bird hunting than all other areas?!
Funny, Leeron accuses me of all sorts of hatred and predjudice, but when I do it it's off-topic?
Poor Scott. He doesn't understand that by making unwarranted assumptions and presenting them as valid conclusions that he reveals his own prejudices. Or maybe he does, and rather than admit this (or show that his assumptions had merit) he's trying to obscure this by raising false accusation against me. I had expressed a hope that Scott had learned something, but rather than take heed he seems intent to compound his sins.
lk, for one you are still ducking #42 and #44. Looks like you don't have an answer. As for catching birds. The why-not-catch-birds-elsewhere arguement is lame. Its no excuse for shooting dead un-armed civilians. Even if its a war zone, the rules of engagement dictate that the soldier should not fire until fired upon.
Poor Leeron. He doesn't understand that by making unwarranted assumptions and presenting them as valid conclusions that he reveals his own prejudices. Or perhaps he does, but he's so blinded by his hatred that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.
whose rules of engagement? Under what conditions? Hell, even the police don't have to wait to be fired upon to shoot a suspect.
Even the police can't just shoot someone dead. They are required to shoot a warning shot, then shoot to arrest which means shoot the suspect at the legs or somewhere else so that the suspect is not killed. Although, this is older, but clearly lays down the rules of engagement for the IDF. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0bzx0 1. When a soldier finds himself in a life-threatening situation, in which case he may direct fire toward the threat (the recent intensication of terrorism in the territories has demonstrated that one type of life-threatening situation encountered is that of a soldier engaging an individual carrying a firearm). The rule clearly says "life-threatening situation" and not suspected "life-threatening situation". 2. While carrying out the standard procedure for apprehending a suspect, in which case the fire is directed to halt the suspect and not to kill him. During violent rioting, soldiers may be permitted to use plastic and rubber bullets to disperse the rioters. These regulations apply to all IDF soldiers, including those serving in special units. Bru, unlike what you seem to think, soldiers have to abide by certain rules when using firearms. From your post, it seems that you think that the police/army can get into a free-for-all whenever they wish. Thankfully, thats not the case.
Excuse Me? But do you realize you are talking to an ex law enforcement officer? Law enforcement are trained NEVER to fire a warning shot. A warning shot could go anywhere and kill or injure someone else. Never, never NEVER fire a warning shot!!! Legs? You never try and shoot the legs. You never shoot any extremites. You are trained to shoot at the center of body mass. Center of body mass is just below the breast bone, right about where the heart is. To kill? No, we are not taught to shoot to kill, but rather to stop the action. If the suspect dies in that process, that is a shame, but it has accomplished what it is supposed to. All you need to have to shoot at a suspect is the belief that life is at risk. If he is carrying a club, knife, or gun, you have the right to shoot. Even if he is unarmed, adn is larger than you and you believe he presents a threat, an officer is empowered to shoot. It may be different for the military, adn different for the police in other countries, but not here in the U.S. of A.
Bru may be technically correct... but if a law enforcement officer in the US even fires his gun in the air, he's going to have to turn in his gun for ballistics testing, file a report, and get through some legal procedures. If somebody is actually injured or killed there will likely be a civil lawsuit along with wore serious internal investigations.
re74: the operative concept being *EX*, retard.
Fuck yourself happyboy. It is probably what you know how to do best. I know what I was trained to do, adn I have only been out of service a month. And I knew this basic tenet long before I became a law officer.
whatever, deputy fife...er EX-DEPUTY FIFE. 8D
Scott just can't help be a twit, with his attempt to mirror what I said. The problem is that it doesn't fit; it's just another false-equivalence: > He doesn't understand that by making unwarranted assumptions and > presenting them as valid conclusions that he reveals his own prejudices. What unwarranted assumptions masquerading as conclusions have I made? Yours can be see in #61. - - - - - - - Rules of engagement are different in a war zone than for the police, and when your enemy disguises himself as a civilian and then blows himself up -- along with you -- that changes things further. sj2, would you allow your children to lay bird traps (easily confused for terrorists laying mines) in a closed military zone when alternatives are available? (Again, does anyone really believe that this small area is better for catching birds than anywhere else?) The cynic in me thinks that this is done intentionally. For there are two obvious benefits. 1. If the bird hunters are shot, it opens Israel to criticism. (Witness this item!) 2. This in turn makes it less likely that terrorists perpetrating attacks will be shot before they can perform their murderous deed. A "win-win" situation, especially if one doesn't mind sacrificing for the cause or believes that the "martyr" will go to heaven and be rewarded with virgins.
Bru, your point might be correct with respect to police in the US of A. However, talking of armies, they are supposed to follow the rules of engagement no matter what the situation is. And as Scott rightly made the point, which was, use of firearms by the police or army is governed by rules and they are accountable for their actions. OT - Can the police in the US open fire on a crowd/mob without any warning shots? lk - I wouldn't send my kids in a military zone. Definitely not. 1. But what if there are no non-military zones in the place where I live? I am not talking of a non-military zone some 50 kms away from my place. What if there are soldiers everywhere in the town I live in? 2. Even though a kid should not be allowed to venture out in a military zone, does it give the right to a soldier to violate human rights and rules of engagement? 3. Read the link I posted. Its from an Israeli government site. It clearly states that there can be no exception to the rules of engagement. 4. The cynic in you might very well be correct. But then it might be very well not. My point is that a human being deserves better than being shot to death at the mere suspicion of having planted a bomb.
Re 79: Wow. Leeron really shows his attitude here. So let me connect the dots. 1. Leeron claims that he never portrays Palestinians as violent or irrational. 2. Leeron's explanation for the incident in #0 is apparently that the Palestinians involved sent their 10-year-old in to a "military area" in order to get himself shot, so that Israel would end up looking bad.
sj2 Police are never allowed to fire warning shots, except in TV. I don't know of any police departmetn anywhere in the U.S. that have a policy that would allow this. Not even during a riot! (that does not mean it doe not happen, but any officer doing so would likely face disciplinary action up to loss of job.) I am currently fighting for my job and will likely lose it because I handcuffed soemone who committed a crime in my house. All I did was detain him, and they can fire me for it. And he was convicted. Warning shots fired into the air can come down and hit someone. Shots fired into the ground can ricochette and hit someone. You cannot fire warning shots. If your gun is out, it is pointed at a suspect. No if, ands, or buts.
Yawn. Still can't address the topic, Scott? Are you limited to talking about me? What an odd obsession. Can you explain the prejudice you exhibited in #61? sj2, there is no information that this was the "only" place to hunt birds. To the contrary, I think someone made the argument that it was "better". That claim sounds curious to me (I don't hunt birds), but it seems to indicate that there are alternatives. Contrary to your impression, except during military operations in pursuit of terrorists, there are no Israeli troops in the towns. You may be right that this soldier was edgy, that he feared that he would come under attack from a bomber. But this doesn't warrant the conclusion that he did so intentionally or that Israeli soldiers, ostensibly due to their hatred, murder Arab children (as Aaron charged). Thus my comparison to the incident in the illegal Iraqi gun-market. Someone was firing a gun near American soldiers who are under constant threat of attack. We would be wise to remember the words of former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: "In war, mistakes will happen. But the greatest mistake is to go to war." In fact, if Aaron's charge was true, what kind of parent would allow their child to go anywhere near a military area? If the parent believes that the child would be in imminent danger (whether this was true or not), either he would forbid such hunting -- or prove my cynicism correct.
When a mistake costs a life and is in contravention of rules of engagement and human rights, it becomes a crime. Not holding violators accountable for such breaches means encouraging the behaviour.
NABLUS, November 4 (IslamOnline.net) - Israeli occupation forces have adopted a new tactic in detaining what they call " Palestinian suspects", based on detaining their wives to get them to surrender in return for releasing their women, IslamOnline.net was told by Palestinian wives. Tamam Abdel Wahid, wife of Anad Salah El-Refae, who is one of those wanted by the occupation forces, told IOL her detention story when Israeli soldiers broke into her house and arrested her on October 25. My 7-month-old baby kept crying but his tears failed to move any feelings inside the soldier who grabbed and threw him on the bed. Then, the Israeli soldiers arrested me, she told IslamOnline.net Monday, November 3. She added that she had nothing to do but to comply with instructions and accompany the soldiers to their military jeep, after blindfolding her and leaving her baby with her boy and two girls. Tamam's tragedy was not a first or a last among Palestinian wives of Palestinian resistance fighters, as internal Israeli intelligence adopted such a policy against the wives of senior leaders of Islamic Resistance movements in the West Bank. Occupation forces arrested the wife of Sheikh Gamal Abu El-Heiga, a Hamas leader, in the northern West Bank to force him to surrender. A surgery for removing a brain tumor was due to be carried out on her before detention. Even after arresting her handicapped husband, occupation intelligence did not release her but she remained in a prison for Palestinian women so far. Another Victim The family of Amgad Ebeidy, 25, who comes on top of the list of the wanted and who is accused of being the head of Al-Quds Brigades, military wing of the Islamic Jihad movement, was also a victim of this tactic, as his wife kamilia was arrested after destroying their home on October 27. A large force came to us in the middle of the night and forced us to get out of our house and told us they would destroy it, Ebeidy s mother told IslamOnline.net. They refused to let us take anything with us. We begged them to allow us to take out the furniture and they paid no attention, she maintained, adding that the occupation soldiers brought down the two- storey building that housed 12 persons. Since I was arrested, they insulted me and threatened to leave me in detention for a long time and to be exposed to horrible torture, Kamilia, released by the Israeli forces after a day in prison, said. The soldiers gathered around me and asked me about Amgad and I said that I don t know his whereabouts but they accused me of being a liar and an accomplice and threatened me of life imprisonment, Kamilia said. Officers started to practice psychological pressures on me and asked me to persuade my husband to surrender, she added. If they think that such measures will humiliate our people, they are mistaken. Yet, where are human right defenders? Where is the Arab conscience? Where is the justice they demand day and night? she wondered. It is worth mentioning that the Ministry of POW and the Released Affairs has declared in August 2003 that the occupation authorities were still detaining 73 Palestinian women, including 11 girls.
"Yawn. Still can't address the topic, Scott? Are you limited to talking about me? What an odd obsession." Leeron, you really don't seem to understand the concept of a discussion. I'm adressing what you say simply because you seem to be the ONLY (cue klg jumping in to say "me too") person here arguing for your position.
I do not know if that is true. Certainly he is the best spokesman for that position here on GREX, but that doesn't mean he is the only one holding any specific position. I have refrained from commenting on the people hunting birds, but shall do so now. It seems to me that the parents of the boy were stupid and careless. remember, he was not the only one out there hunting birds, he had relatives with him. While he may not have known better than to go into the area and hunt, they should have, and they should have kept him out if it was possibly dangerous. The palestinians have had no problem using kids to provoke the Isrealis in the past, adn I am sure they will have no problem doing so in the future. The isrealis could have ended this 40 year ago by pushing all palestinians out of the Country. They didn't. They could have done it 30 years ago by pushing all palestinians out of the country. They didn't. They had the military might to do this any time in the past 20 years. They didn't. This should tell the palestinian supporters something. It should tell them the isrealis WANT to work with them. They WANT peace. They Want to have an integrated nation. The palestinians DON'T!
Let's not forget here that there's a great deal of poverty and hunger going on in occupied territories right now. So this isn't some hobby of one kid, there are going to be lots of people hunting birds for food. So certainly there are going to people already claiming other, safer areas as their own hunting grounds, and for somebody hungry enough going into a "military area" would be an acceptable risk. (Yes, Leeron, we've all heard your argument about how poverty is the Palestinian's own fault, and I still don't believe it either)
Good points, Bruce. The converse is also true. The Arabs could have made peace in 1937, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1967, 1977, 1994, 2000.... but with the exception of a few countries (Egypt in the late 1970s, Jordan in 1994) chose not to. Once again Scott allows his imagination to run away with fiction. While the situation has gone from good to worse due to Arab terrorism (in Gaza, a 64x increase in the number of people being fed by UNRWA) there is no starvation that would make sending children into a closed military area an "acceptable risk". > there are going to be lots of people hunting birds for FOOD. > there are going to [be] people already claiming other, safer areas Really? Have there been turf wars over bird hunting areas? I mean, wouldn't you rather squabble with your neighbor than be shot at by the Israeli army? (If things were as alleged, if hate-filled Israeli troops were just waiting to shoot Arab children, one would expect the exact opposite behavior.) Of course, this is all hogwash. The birds aren't even being hunted for food! THEY WERE HUNTING FOR *SONG* BIRDS!!! Will someone please help Scott wipe the egg off his face?
Gosh, Leeron, are you now saying that you believe this article?
Ah, what the heck. Nicely done, Leeron, I'd missed that detail.
lk: birds may be (and would've been, if Mohammed al-Dura, GBHS, hadn't been shot by yids) sold for cash money which may be transacted for food (and optionally whore).
You have several choices: