response 200 of 269:

May 16 20:38 UTC 2002

Lynne slipped in. These children DID have explosivse. From the Post:

        The type of bomb the boys carried toward Netzarim can be bought on the
        streets in Gaza City for a few dollars. Made from an L-shaped section
        of drainage pipe stuffed with homemade explosives, it has become a
        common weapon against Israeli military vehicles in the street clashes
        that have erupted almost daily since the uprising began in Sep. 2000. 

Yet it isn't especially relevant. Even if such boys were not carrying
explosives, there's no way Israeli soldiers could know this. There is nothing
to distinghuish them from trained suicide bombers.

response 202 of 269:

May 17 06:07 UTC 2002

Why would you say that? I, for one, disagree.  What I said was that Israeli
soldiers cannot distinguish between non-uniformed children trained by
terrorists to conduct successful attacks and non-uniformed children who
are not trained but take it upon themselves to conduct futile attacks.
Since there is no way to distinguish one from the other, Israeli soldiers are
fully within their self-defense rights to shoot THOSE WHO ARE ATTACKING THEM
without first trying to determine to which of these groups they belong.

This confusion could be avoided if terrorists abided by the Geneva
Conventions and wore uniforms, but then they wouldn't be able to hide
amongst and behind the civilian population and use illegal acts of perfidity.
All of which, it appears, you approve.

response 204 of 269:

May 17 13:06 UTC 2002

"The IDF has carte blanche to shoot anyone they want."

Did I explicitly (or implicitly) say that, Scott?

response 206 of 269:

May 17 18:50 UTC 2002

But I didn't "describe" it in any such way. Why did you choose to
misinterpret what I said?

response 208 of 269:

May 17 23:36 UTC 2002

I dont know enough of the situation to know if th IDF were justified in
killing these kids. I was pointing out that calling their deaths "suicide"
when they were shot by IDF soldiers is quite a lot of spin.

response 210 of 269:

May 18 13:39 UTC 2002

Leeron, you're making no sense at all there, except that you can't swallow
your pride and admit you were wrong.  Now, for the third or fourth time, where
exactly did I state approval for the Palestians not following the Geneva
Convention?

response 212 of 269:

May 21 12:26 UTC 2002

Which is it?  That's easy.  We fundamentally disagree on subject.  

response 214 of 269:

May 21 16:12 UTC 2002

I can.  Can you answer my question, or are you going to keep trying to drag
the discussion into one of your usual dead ends?  

Leeron, you claimed I approved of Palestinians not following the Geneva
Convention.  Once again I ask:  Where did I say that?  

response 216 of 269:

May 21 18:42 UTC 2002

Oh geez.  

Scott said, "So now the IDF has carte blanche to shoot anyone they 
want," after Leeron said, "Even if such boys were not carrying 
explosives, there's no way Israeli soldiers could know this. There is 
nothing to distinghuish them from trained suicide bombers."  That *is* 
what Leeron said.

But in response to Scott's remark, Leeron tried to change 

A: "Even if such boys were not carrying explosives, there's no way 
Israeli soldiers could know this. There is nothing to distinghuish them 
from trained suicide bombers" 

to 

B: "What I said was that Israeli soldiers cannot distinguish between 
non-uniformed children trained by terrorists to conduct successful 
attacks and non-uniformed children who are not trained but take it upon 
themselves to conduct futile attacks," 

which is so not A it isn't even funny.  

(Then Leeron had to add that Scott apparently approves of the 
terrorists' "illegal acts of perfidy."  If anyone can find where Scott 
said that, please let us know.  You know Leeron won't because he can't.)

It is futile to discuss The Subject with Leeron.  There can be no 
meeting of the minds, mutual understanding, reasonable discourse, or 
anything like that.

response 218 of 269:

May 21 23:35 UTC 2002

md, perhaps you should re-read the thread starting from #194. The very
discussion of "*such* children" was focused on specifically those who
attack Israelis -- with knives, guns and explosives.

What I said is that there is no way Israeli soldiers can identify which
of *these* children have been trained by Hamas/IJ/PFLP and pose a serious
threat (such as the Arab teenager who killed 5-6 Israeli children as they
prayed/slept or the 14-year-old suicide bomber who killed about a dozen
soldiers) and those who have set out on their own and who *might* not pose
a serious threat (perhaps their explosives aren't all that powerful, maybe
they can't even shoot straight).

THIS is what Scott twisted into meaning that therefore Israeli soldiers
could shoot at anyone, anywhere, anytime:

> So now the IDF has carte blanche to shoot anyone they want.

Then Scott explained that this was his "interpretation" of what I said.

> That was my interpretation of the situation as you describe it.

Realizing that I didn't say anything that could be interpreted as such,
Scott changed his story:

> I made a comment which I did NOT attribute to you.  

So Scott's comment was a non-sequitur. Fine.
Does anyone wish to address the subject?

Is it OK for Arab children to attack Israelis provided they are trained?

response 220 of 269:

May 22 06:21 UTC 2002

Yawn. Scott, was your non-sequitur an "interpretation" of what I said or
was it not based on anything you "attributed" to me? (Which red herring
will Scott raise in his next response to evade this question?)

response 222 of 269:

May 23 05:18 UTC 2002

Still can't answer my question, can you? (My answer is in #211.)

How can something not "attributed" to me be an "interpretation" of what I
said?

response 224 of 269:

May 23 17:31 UTC 2002

The question on the table here, Scott, is: How can something you claimed you
did not "attribute" to me be, as you previously claimed, an "interpretation"
of what I said?