Israeli Troops Invade Qalandiya Refugee Camp and Kill Two civilians
215 replies, posted
If a swat team overreacted and shot 2 unarmed suspects during an operation, people would come up with all kinds of explanations for their actions such as the shoot to kill procedure etc.
If a soldier that is not from our own country overreacts and shoots 2 unarmed civilians there will be a media rage out.
The actual truth is that all of these people are equal dicktards and should probably be put to prison.
Edit: Remember that case where the homeowner met two robbers downstairs who were both unarmed but still a potential threat like these pissed off refugees? He shot the other one in the face and shot the other dead when he tried to escape.
I doubt that guy got locked behind bars.
[QUOTE=Falchion;31686140]If a swat team overreacted and shot 2 unarmed suspects during an operation, people would come up with all kinds of explanations for their actions such as the shoot to kill procedure etc.
If a soldier that is not from our own country overreacts and shoots 2 unarmed civilians there will be a media rage out.
The actual truth is that all of these people are equal dicktards and should probably be put to prison.[/QUOTE]Actually no there's always a clear majority against the SWAT actions every-time that happens, like that one guy who even aimed a gun at the SWAT units.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;31686203]Actually no there's always a clear majority against the SWAT actions every-time that happens, like that one guy who even aimed a gun at the SWAT units.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://gawker.com/5737240/police-strike-force-shoots-man-armed-with-golf-club-over-his-roommates-drugs[/url]
It all runs case by case, people understand that the circumstances of a situation are more important than the act and judge accordingly. In some cases they have followed protocol and the protocol is flawed, other times they misjudge the situation. It's fucked up but it happens, getting mad is a natural reaction but it's standard fare for police forces.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31680539]no im saying the soldiers had no other choice.
the military shouldnt have been used here for just this reason. police have to use restraint, soldiers dont have to near to that extent
you are putting words in my mouth and using emotional strawmen against me.[/QUOTE]
How did they not have any other choice?
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;31685066]Lol.
Its funny because you A: think soldiers are going to disobey orders and face being court martialed and B: think that they would disobey orders to open fire on people who are attacking them[/quote]
You see, I'm not a person who sees things in black and white. I'm also not so fucking stupid and souless that I would just accept this ridiculous justification. They're human beings, not robots.
[quote]Why do you figure they didn't do that? Why would they NOT take cover? There has to be a reason since 5 people somehow got injured.[/quote]
It's not hard to avoid rocks, and if they're behind something, there is no real possible way for them to be injured.
[quote]Im not OK with that either. But Im also not OK with you pinning the blame on the soldiers and not the politicians or the commanders.[/quote]
The soldiers shot, it's their fault. THEY should be charged with murder and they should be arrested. The ones who actually killed the people. Man, you would have had a blast during the Nuremberg trials.
[quote]Soldiers are expected to follow orders, even if they are shitty or morally wrong.[/quote]
Don't pretend this means anything to me. I hate the military enough, this isn't a good justification at all, and you're an idiot if you think it is.
[quote]That's why soldiers don't get tried for things their commander orders them to do (even if they went through with it), the commander gets a war crimes trial.[/QUOTE]
The commanders ALSO get the trial, other soldiers are tried. ie Mai Lai massacre.
[QUOTE=Falchion;31686140]If a swat team overreacted and shot 2 unarmed suspects during an operation, people would come up with all kinds of explanations for their actions such as the shoot to kill procedure etc.
If a soldier that is not from our own country overreacts and shoots 2 unarmed civilians there will be a media rage out.
The actual truth is that all of these people are equal dicktards and should probably be put to prison.
Edit: Remember that case where the homeowner met two robbers downstairs who were both unarmed but still a potential threat like these pissed off refugees? He shot the other one in the face and shot the other dead when he tried to escape.
I doubt that guy got locked behind bars.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about the farmer in England he only shot one of them (the one escaping) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released though.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31685910]at what point does civil disobedience go to attempted lethal assault?[/quote]
Rioters in the west throw worse things than rocks. They through pieces of debris, things on fucking fire, glass, all sorts of things. Is that attempted lethal assualt enough? Or is the only time it's attempted lethal assault if Middle Eastern people are doing it?
[quote]is it the use of non-guns? in that case, if a soldier rounds the corner and someone jumps out and starts smashing a brick into a face, is this not the sort of enemy soldiers are trained to neutralise with guns?[/quote]
Except this wasn't what happened.
[quote]is is the range? in that case, at how many metres distance does civil disobedience go to a military assault by an ununiformed enemy with a non-ballistic weapon?[/quote]
At what point can police start mowing down the rioters in London? If they're doing equally dangerous things.
[quote]thus, any arguments that because the enemy was throwing rocks automatically and unconditionally rules out a lethal response, in the manner of a trained army by a trained army, is stupid. its really fantastic that you survived getting hit with a cinderblock, but that really doesn't mean anything. a us congresswoman survived getting shot in the head, does that mean the soldiers should not use a lethal response when met with gunfire?[/QUOTE]
First you aren't exactly the go-to person on human rights abuses, seeing as you defend the fuck out of them. Second, you're basically adding all sorts of factors that weren't fucking there, so you can't go into this whole philosophy of when soldiers have the right to murder people.
The fact of the matter is this: They were protected enough, and they used unnecessary force and murdered two innocent people. Now, you probably see it as two uppity brown people being put down, but in reality it's a human rights violation.
[QUOTE=amute;31692296]Rioters in the west throw worse things than rocks. They through pieces of debris, things on fucking fire, glass, all sorts of things. Is that attempted lethal assualt enough? Or is the only time it's attempted lethal assault if Middle Eastern people are doing it?
[B]how can you make this out as people who argue with you are racists?[/B]
Except this wasn't what happened.
At what point can police start mowing down the rioters in London? If they're doing equally dangerous things.
[B]as many others have already told you, the police force and the IDF are very different, Soldiers aren't obliged to look after those who are threatening them. In the same sense that police are, anyway[/B]
First you aren't exactly the go-to person on human rights abuses, seeing as you defend the fuck out of them. Second, you're basically adding all sorts of factors that weren't fucking there, so you can't go into this whole philosophy of when soldiers have the right to murder people.
[B]welcome to real life, where soldiers actually protect themselves against threats, and sometimes kills people.[/B]
The fact of the matter is this: They were protected enough, and they used unnecessary force and murdered two innocent people. Now, you probably see it as two uppity brown people being put down, but in reality it's a human rights violation.
[B]this is not the fact of the matter. if i had [url=http://english.pnn.ps/images/stories/2008/clashesinJerusalem.jpg]these stones[/url] thrown at me and i would not have any doubt that the person lobbing these stones at me were trying to kill or seriously injure me, and if i had a gun on me and i was a trained soldier i would probably have used it. you keep saying the two guys who were shot were innocent, but if you are throwing stones at armed military personnel with the intent to harm them you are certainly not innocent.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
the fact of the matter is this: we can take sides all we want and interpret the facts presented as we wish, but the truth is that none of us were there and it is therefore really foolish to try to argue that it was unnecessary or not. neither you or i can make that call because we were not in the situation.
it is also really silly to bring up the whole "well i got hit with a stone and i survived" because it's kind of like saying everything is black and white and everyone survives getting rocks lobbed at them.
i will however say that it is tragic that two young men were killed.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;31694510]
But what the hell is it with the Nazi Germany comparison in the op? How fucking sensationalist can you get? It's disgusting.[/QUOTE]
It's not far off, really.
[QUOTE=amute;31692001]How did they not have any other choice?[/QUOTE]
because they were confronted by a large group of enemy combatants.
thats what they are trained and what they were probably ordered to do. it isnt their fault for following orders and training.
Actually it is their fault and they earned some kind of punishment but it's not like we can treat this like some horrible unspeakable unheard of previously atrocity because shit like this happens all the time on different levels.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31694700]because they were confronted by a large group of enemy combatants.
thats what they are trained and what they were probably ordered to do. it isnt their fault for following orders and training.[/QUOTE]
It is their fault for not following orders, again, they're not robots.
You also didn't answer my question, if the group was made up of children, would shooting them still be justified?
[QUOTE=amute;31694844]It is their fault for not following orders, again, they're not robots.
You also didn't answer my question, if the group was made up of children, would shooting them still be justified?[/QUOTE]
You're being too extreme. Following orders does not make you a robot if you're in the army. You are there to follow orders.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;31695817]Yeah except the fact that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, allows homosexuals to serve in its military, does not discriminate against black people or the disabled, doesn't systematically murder people for simply being Palestinian or Arab in general, doesn't start world wars, doesn't have an insane dictator and actually provides millions of aid like food, water, and even recreational supplies to the Gaza district.[/QUOTE]
Is that why the blockade stopped a flotilla and sent in armed men to seize their supplies?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31696161]Is that why the blockade stopped a flotilla and sent in armed men to seize their supplies?[/QUOTE]
Yes, everything is as black and white as it is reported.
[QUOTE=jaykray;31696203]Yes, everything is as black and white as it is reported.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it's black and white, but he says those things as Palestinians are treated just as well as Israelis, and that just isn't the case.
[QUOTE=amute;31694844]It is their fault for not following orders, again, they're not robots.[/quote]
no its not your obviously very dense
[quote]You also didn't answer my question, if the group was made up of children, would shooting them still be justified?[/QUOTE]
if they posed as much of a threat to the lives of the soldiers as this mob did then yes it would. thats what happens in iraq when little kids pick up guns and shoot at american soldiers.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31696443]if they posed as much of a threat to the lives of the soldiers as this mob did then yes it would. thats what happens in iraq when little kids pick up guns and shoot at american soldiers.[/QUOTE]
Uhh....
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31696469]Uhh....[/QUOTE]
or ya could...ya know, let them kill you right?
thats obviously the best choice is to just let a mob kill you because GOD FORBID YOU DEFEND YOURSELF IN ANY SITUATION EVER
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
especially if your jewish
because fuck the jews amirite amute
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31696540]or ya could...ya know, let them kill you right?
thats obviously the best choice is to just let a mob kill you because GOD FORBID YOU DEFEND YOURSELF IN ANY SITUATION EVER
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
especially if your jewish
because fuck the jews amirite amute[/QUOTE]
Yes, this mob was going to kill these armored soldiers by throwing rocks at them, and the only way they could have defended themselves was to shoot them. Of course.
Plus I'm pretty sure amute used to be Jewish.
[QUOTE=LCBADs;31696629]Yes, this mob was going to kill these armored soldiers by throwing rocks at them, and the only way they could have defended themselves was to shoot them. Of course.
Plus I'm pretty sure amute used to be Jewish.[/QUOTE]
Jewish =/= zioinist/israeli
Comparing the Israelis to the Nazis is retarded.
[QUOTE=LCBADs;31696629]Yes, this mob was going to kill these armored soldiers by throwing rocks at them, and the only way they could have defended themselves was to shoot them. Of course.
Plus I'm pretty sure amute used to be Jewish.[/QUOTE]
what part of rocks can kill soldiers do you not understand?
a soldier isnt armored against rocks anyways
[QUOTE=jaykray;31696649]Jewish =/= zioinist/israeli[/QUOTE]
either way hating zionists and israelis is just as bigoted as hating jews.
[QUOTE=LCBADs;31696629]Yes, this mob was going to kill these armored soldiers by throwing rocks at them, and the only way they could have defended themselves was to shoot them. Of course.
Plus I'm pretty sure amute used to be Jewish.[/QUOTE]
People have been killed with rocks before. And what else did they have to defend themselves with? Pepper spray?
there are about a million options existing between "shoot them" and "let yourself be pummeled to death with rocks"
for example, "when a rock is flying towards you take one step to the right or left" or "stand next to a tree" or "take a few steps back so that the already minimal threat that a rock poses to you, a physically fit adult man wearing a helmet, is decreased even further"
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
the weight of, and therefore danger posed by, a rock is inversely proportional to how far it can be thrown. if the people who were shot were charging at the soldiers with small boulders in their hands, you better believe that that is what would be reported, but that is not what was reported. we should not let every single instance of "rocks thrown" be mutated into "clouds of flying boulders"
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
you people's justifications for the shooting predicates entirely on the existence of circumstances (bigass killer rocks/impromptu smaller rock artillery barrages) which we have no evidence for the existence of
Why not shoot near their feet and scare the fuck out of them before you decide to shoot them in the head.
Hey, this is the same guy that posted that genocide thread in GD...
why not do literally anything other than shoot a man because, dude, this one soldier totally got hit with a rock once and died bro, it was like, in iraq or something
or we could just shoot anybody who could do anything that could conceivably harm another person
facepunch freaks out whenever someone suggests banning guns on the basis that "hey, you can kill people with forks too" but apparently when the person with the hilariously ineffective offensive weapon is a palestinian they become a dire threat to be dealt with with nothing less than a shot to the head at 100 paces
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31698354]why not do literally anything other than shoot a man because, dude, this one soldier totally got hit with a rock once and died bro, it was like, in iraq or something
or we could just shoot anybody who could do anything that could conceivably harm another person
facepunch freaks out whenever someone suggests banning guns on the basis that "hey, you can kill people with forks too" but apparently when the person with the hilariously ineffective offensive weapon is a palestinian they become a dire threat to be dealt with with nothing less than a shot to the head at 100 paces[/QUOTE]
tbh having a dozen people throw rocks at you can seriously injure you.
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31698070]there are about a million options existing between "shoot them" and "let yourself be pummeled to death with rocks"
for example, "when a rock is flying towards you take one step to the right or left" or "stand next to a tree" or "take a few steps back so that the already minimal threat that a rock poses to you, a physically fit adult man wearing a helmet, is decreased even further"
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
the weight of, and therefore danger posed by, a rock is inversely proportional to how far it can be thrown. if the people who were shot were charging at the soldiers with small boulders in their hands, you better believe that that is what would be reported, but that is not what was reported. we should not let every single instance of "rocks thrown" be mutated into "clouds of flying boulders"
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
you people's justifications for the shooting predicates entirely on the existence of circumstances (bigass killer rocks/impromptu smaller rock artillery barrages) which we have no evidence for the existence of[/QUOTE]
well what WAS reported was five soldiers were injured, so i think that's pretty serious.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31698354]facepunch freaks out whenever someone suggests banning guns on the basis that "hey, you can kill people with forks too" but apparently when the person with the hilariously ineffective offensive weapon is a palestinian they become a dire threat to be dealt with with nothing less than a shot to the head at 100 paces[/QUOTE]
nice generalisation.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;31698387]tbh having a dozen people throw rocks at you can seriously injure you.[/QUOTE]
cool. lets kill some brown people then because there is a small potential that i might get seriously injured if i stand still like an idiot and let a bunch of emaciated teenagers hit me with rocks
[editline]12th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=jaykray;31698425]nice generalisation.[/QUOTE]
nice post containing literally any substance at all
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.