People are up in arms about this, but I say "Good for them!"
http://www.clarynovels.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=165
"I was scared that I was going to be hit by a rock" ...WELL GOOD. Now you know how the soldiers that you were throwing rocks at feel! Moron.
May 9 2007, 11:09 am
|
|
Jtgibson
 |
Yeah, I have to say, that's pretty just desserts. I've been pretty pissed at Israel's militarism lately, which has been second only to that of the United States, but this is a nice contrast. I mean, when you think about it, the Palestinians who throw rocks at the soldiers are technically attacking the soldiers with weapons. The fact that the soldiers don't shoot back is a testament to their resolve.
|
The link isn't working and I can't seem to find a copy of the article from Google. Where else can I read this?
| |
Well, opening fire on kids tossing rocks is a bit extreme. Especially when mounted in an APC that can stop most small arms fire. It's kind of like stabbing someone who fired a water gun full of lemon juice at you.
And using human shields is prohibited by both Israeli and international law. So those soldiers may be in some trouble (with their bosses at least!). Granted, the risk was minor, but it sets a bad example. I also fail to see why using a young boy as a shield is just anything. Was there any indicator he was involved in the rock throwing? Even worse, it will give fuel to extremists who vilify Israel and will likely cause some loss of credibility even with more moderate people. I know I do not approve! I do, however, whole heartedly endorse Israel's sovereignty and right to defend itself through legitimate means. This does not include torture (something the current US administration needs to work on, but I digress) nor human shields as both are specifically prohibited by Israeli agreement. There is nothing here indicating the soldiers acted with official sanction and I see no reason why Israel can't deal with the matter on its own. | |
The kid was one of the rock throwers. They grabbed him from the crowd and put him on the jeep. Perfectly reasonable solution to get the rock throwers to stop. Either that or pepper spray.
| |
I don't normally split hairs on areas of human rights, but I think morally and legally there should be a distinction between using hostages to dissuade bombings and such, and what these soldiers did.
If throwing rocks does not constitute assault with a lethal weapon, the boy was not a shield. If it does, then let's condemn the rioters first. Either way, the soldiers had a solution worthy of Solomon. | |
Jmurph wrote:
It's kind of like stabbing someone who fired a water gun full of lemon juice at you. Were it not for the legal consequences, I'd really want to do that to someone, depending on who they are. <_< | |
I say good for the little bastard. He deserved every pebble he was hit by. Peaceful protest is okay by me, but throwing rocks crosses the line, so I think Israel's Finest should be given an award for ingenuity, instead of being harassed.
| |
This is the same as taking a teenager in the U.S. who threw a ball at a person because he saw everyone else doing it and taking him out single and have him be afraid of being hit by more balls.
I fail to see why they took the Teenager out of everyone else. "but throwing rocks crosses the line" And killing someone for throwing a little rock doesn't? | |
Link899 wrote:
This is the same as taking a teenager in the U.S. who threw a ball at a person because he saw everyone else doing it Wow, did people suddenly lose their ability to think for themselves? and taking him out single and have him be afraid of being hit by more balls. Why not? "but throwing rocks crosses the line" And killing someone for throwing a little rock doesn't? No one died. What the hell are you on about? | |
See, that's the problem. What happens when they don't stop. And the kid gets hurt. Or killed. Sure, blame the throwers, you say. But the soldiers knowingly put him in that position. Without protection. On a steel vehicle that would have shrugged off the rocks.
Pepper spray seems reasonable. Mace is probably preferable, though, as it is almost impossible to build resistance too. Hedgemistress: Definitely condemn the rioters! But that doesn't mean we should condone everything else. I just think this method, while clever, could have gone terribly awry. Much like the case that prompted the Israeli courts to ban human shields in the first place. And if the solution was half as good as Solomon's, it would solve the problem! Additionally, there are allegations of brutality and excessive force. Like I said, I am sure it will be handled internally. SilkWizard wrote: The kid was one of the rock throwers. They grabbed him from the crowd and put him on the jeep. Perfectly reasonable solution to get the rock throwers to stop. Either that or pepper spray. | |
Worldweaver wrote:
Wow, did people suddenly lose their ability to think for themselves?Always have and always will, just look at High Schools, and Teens in America. Why not?You tell me why not, I think it is somewhere in that brain of yours labeled common sense......It's called being fair. No one died. What the hell are you on about?I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about history, I'm surprised the kid didn't end up dead. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
The kid was one of the rock throwers. They grabbed him from the crowd and put him on the jeep. Perfectly reasonable solution to get the rock throwers to stop. Either that or pepper spray. I hadn't read the article (the link was dead even when I responded), so I took your post as written (and assumed it meant the literal case of human shield -- holding someone in front of you to stop people from attacking you in person -- and wasn't aware of the existence of a jeep). However, the BBC article suggests brutal violence was used in getting the kid onto the jeep, and then the kid was strapped to the jeep. In that case, I'm not quite as happy about it. If it were a little less violent -- like grabbing him out of the crowd and saying "If you throw rocks at us, you're going to hit this innocent kid too!" -- and didn't involve strapping him onto a jeep I'd probably be a little more supportive, because then they'd just be using a method of protecting themselves. As it was, it was more like taking a hostage than like an ingenious solution to a problem. Still, throwing rocks against a jeep is an act of aggression, and at the very least it puts up a considerable fog of war -- the soldiers in the jeep will be extremely on edge because there's no telling when those rocks might turn into bullets. I don't really blame them for trying a method to get the rocks to stop. I just would've done it in a different way. (I don't tend to put a lot of blame on people if they're in a stressful situation and they react to that situation with measured force. For instance, I can't imagine any U.K. soldier would willingly fire on an innocent civilian unless the civilian was either acting in a threatening manner or surprised the troops in a close-quarters battle, yet most publications on this side of the pond about Bloody Sunday portray the Brits as being bloodthirsty murderers.) | |
Jt, Silk's analysis was probably more accurate than the BBC's slander fest. They bias all their articles, and it's about as bad as it gets there.
For another example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6166362.stm | |
XD, let's call Hamas the heroes in all of this.
| |
Holy !*%$, that's ridiculous. I knew the BBC was liberally-biased, but are they honestly supporting civilians deliberately going in front of military targets? Yeesh.
| |
Wow. That piece should have been labeled an editorial!
| |
Worldweaver wrote:
Jt, Silk's analysis was probably more accurate than the BBC's slander fest. They bias all their articles, and it's about as bad as it gets there. All they did in that article was cite their sources and put what they said... where is the slander? | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
I don't normally split hairs on areas of human rights, but ... [snipped for space] Precisely my sentiments. Well said. | |