Israeli troops fire on Palestinian protesters along Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon borders - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29884099]If they're unprepared, what's the alternative? Should the people rioting give Israel extra notice of their protests?[/QUOTE] i don't know i'm not a soldier, they are, maybe they should come up with the alternative? [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29884130]I am generally a calm person and prefer not to dwell on tragedies. Nothing is gained by mourning someone I never knew and it is not a requirement to know that it should have been prevented. I do not become invested in it, but I do not treat death with unconcern.[/QUOTE] it seems like you do though, you're just like "oh well they were unprepared nothing could be done" i think sure that's the kind of attitude to take if their lack of preparedness caused like, i dunno property damage or some shit, but when a bunch of unarmed protesters end up dead i think that soldiers being unprepared to deal with it isn't good enough

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884166]i don't know i'm not a soldier, they are, maybe they should come up with the alternative?[/QUOTE] in order for self preservation, perhaps lethal force was the only option. don't forget you're not a protester, so maybe they should come up with a new way of protesting?

[QUOTE=MoarFunz;29884121]I'm an Israeli and I'm not here to blindly justify. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] However, you blindly justify everyone but Israel, which is also stupid.[/QUOTE] What's your opinion on it? Were you one of the ones killed? Please reply fast.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29884186]in order for self preservation, perhaps lethal force was the only option. don't forget you're not a protester, so maybe they should come up with a new way of protesting?[/QUOTE] when you become a soldier the possibility of death so that civilians may live is part of the job. and yeah i agree they should have been more peaceful but again, still no justification for armed soldiers to kill unarmed protesters.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884166]it seems like you do though, you're just like "oh well they were unprepared nothing could be done" i think sure that's the kind of attitude to take if their lack of preparedness caused like, i dunno property damage or some shit, but when a bunch of unarmed protesters end up dead i think that soldiers being unprepared to deal with it isn't good enough[/QUOTE] But what point is there to getting mad over it? Why get emotionally involved when it won't help? Someone who thinks it an unacceptable atrocity will come to the same conclusion as a distant and disconnected person, it shouldn't have happened. Once that goal is found, what use does raging about it have? [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884215]when you become a soldier the possibility of death so that civilians may live is part of the job. and yeah i agree they should have been more peaceful but again, still no justification for armed soldiers to kill unarmed protesters.[/QUOTE] As I said before, there is more to it than the immediate. Not shooting and controlling it one day may result in weapons or explosives getting through and many more dying another day. Hell, just knowing that the border guards won't shoot civilians leads smugglers to be a lot more daring. It was not without meaning, stop treating it as such.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29884224]But what point is there to getting mad over it? Why get emotionally involved when it won't help? Someone who thinks it an unacceptable atrocity will come to the same conclusion as a distant and disconnected person, it shouldn't have happened. Once that goal is found, what use does raging about it have? [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] As I said before, there is more to it than the immediate. Not shooting and controlling it one day may result in weapons or explosives getting through and many more dying another day. Hell, just knowing that the border guards won't shoot civilians leads smugglers to be a lot more daring. It was not without meaning, stop treating it as such.[/QUOTE] what i mean is you're treating this like it's nothing. this is the kind of thing that should cause court marshals. and what are you implying, they either had to shoot or let them all through? and that's ridiculous you have no way of knowing if it would have caused more death, but i know for a fact that if they DIDN'T shoot there would have been a lot less death.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884315]what i mean is you're treating this like it's nothing. this is the kind of thing that should cause court marshals. and what are you implying, they either had to shoot or let them all through? and that's ridiculous you have no way of knowing if it would have caused more death, but i know for a fact that if they DIDN'T shoot there would have been a lot less death.[/QUOTE] More than likely he was following procedure, doing his duty. You say it as a fact but you are just as uncertain about it as any. As you so point out, nothing is certain. It is a matter or risk and the risk of a rioting group such as this is not one to take. It could of gone fine without, it might have gone to hell, it is unknown as he didn't take that chance.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29884356]More than likely he was following procedure, doing his duty. You say it as a fact but you are just as uncertain about it as any. As you so point out, nothing is certain. It is a matter or risk and the risk of a rioting group such as this is not one to take. It could of gone fine without, it might have gone to hell, it is unknown as he didn't take that chance.[/QUOTE] i know that it is a fact that, if they didn't start shooting, at least 12 people would still be alive. again, you can't just say be like "oh well it could have been worse or it couldn't have" when people have been killed then there is something wrong.

[QUOTE=sergeantsmiles;29884191]What's your opinion on it? Were you one of the ones killed? Please reply fast.[/QUOTE] I'm not guarding the lines like the soldiers do therefore I'm not gonna point out an opinion since I haven't seen what's really going on there and how it feels.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884394]i know that it is a fact that, if they didn't start shooting, at least 12 people would still be alive. again, you can't just say be like "oh well it could have been worse or it couldn't have" when people have been killed then there is something wrong.[/QUOTE] A noble idea but this is reality. There is no perfect solution where no-one dies and doing so in favour of the short term will only fail in the long term. Everything is wrong, the world is unjust. Even in the possibility of perfection there lies just as much death if it fails. Weaving alternate worlds where things went differently and saying this is what they should of done is pointless.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884166] it seems like you do though, you're just like "oh well they were unprepared nothing could be done" i think sure that's the kind of attitude to take if their lack of preparedness caused like, i dunno property damage or some shit, but when a bunch of unarmed protesters end up dead i think that soldiers being unprepared to deal with it isn't good enough[/QUOTE] From the article- "In addition, hundreds of Palestinian threw stones at Israeli police and burned tires at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem before they were dispersed." There were Israeli forces there as well, but nobody was killed. You know why? Because they had riot gear and they had an option, that option being not shooting anyone and the chose it, even though they had firearms and could have easily used them. They weren't pushed with their backs against the wall, so they didn't just start firing blindly (unlike the things that Libya and Syria have been doing in the last couple of months). It's very easy to say "I would have done different", but very hard to prove it.

[QUOTE=amute;29844300]Lets see who defends this![/QUOTE] Protesters got hostile, Israel opened fire. People died.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884215]when you become a soldier the possibility of death so that civilians may live is part of the job.[/QUOTE] so that [B]your [/B]civilians may live. israel keeps the IDF in order to stop intrusions like this case from occurring. did you really suggest that a soldier sacrifice themself though? [QUOTE=Lachz0r;29884215]and yeah i agree they should have been more peaceful but again, still no justification for armed soldiers to kill unarmed protesters.[/QUOTE] i guess you can see it that way when you have the expectation that it is necessary for soldiers (let alone conscripted soldiers) to give up their own lives in order to protect the people from themselves.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29884099]If they're unprepared, what's the alternative? Should the people rioting give Israel extra notice of their protests?[/QUOTE] Pretty much this, wtf are you going to do as a guard? I would be amused to see some of you in their shoes, hugely outnumbered by a crowd that would most likely beat you to death with rocks if they got close enough to disarm you. I suppose you guys think the guards should have just run away? what then, more damage? Let them rampage wherever they want, burning stuff down, potentially bringing in weapons? Put simply, from the information I see so far, if I was in the Israeli's shoes I can possibly see me doing what they did. If I was in the Palestinian shoes I wouldn't be attacking fences like a bunch of savages in front of armed personnel that's for sure.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29879134']Are they still civilians when they attack your country?[/QUOTE] lol. knocking down a fence, trampling on Benjamin Netanyahu's prize-winning azaleas = ATTACKING A COUNTRY

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29845227]Challenge accepted. The reason Israel is belligerent today is because of the Arab's own belligerent actions. Last century, Israel was a perfectly peaceful established country. Almost all of its inhabitants were holocaust survivors, wanting to live in peace. However, the arabs sought to end what Hitler started, and to destroy Israel. A coalition of several arab countries and a militia of several hundred thousand tried to kill all Israelis. However, Israel won. Several years later, on a Jewish high holiday, the sneaky arabs launched a surprise attack on Israel whilst everybody was fasting as is a requirement of Yom Kippur. Israel turned the fight and won. In every instance of war, the belligerency of the arabs always started it, and the Israelis finished it. Because of the siege mentality the Israelis have developed, they are now belligerent. Blame Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc... for the violence of the Israelis, for they are the root of the problem. Also, in Gaza 3 years ago there was peace. However Hamas broke that peace by launching rockets with intent on killing Israeli civilians. Not only this, but before the Wall was created around Palestine, there were almost daily suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas broke that peace, and in order to fight the Israelis, they set up mortars in schools, mosques, and hospitals. There is footage of Hamas members pulling children in front of them as human shields as well.[/QUOTE] What you fail to mention though is how Israel consistently expanded to accommodate its own citizens at the expense of the Gaza strip. I am not saying Hamas is faultless, but the Israelis Have done actions that pushed violence out of certain groups out of necessity.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;29886034]What you fail to mention though is how Israel consistently expanded to accommodate its own citizens at the expense of the Gaza strip. I am not saying Hamas is faultless, but the Israelis Have done actions that pushed violence out of certain groups out of necessity.[/QUOTE] Israel has not been expanding into the Gaza Strip.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29886070]Israel has not been expanding into the Gaza Strip.[/QUOTE] He probably meant the West Bank, his point still stands.

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;29844414]Now I strongly disagree with Israel opening fire on the protesters, but it seems there is blame to carry on both sides, as it said they breached their border/damaged the fence, and well I wouldn't take that lightly if I were supervising the border, though the Israeli troops shouldn't of opened fire under any circumstance. And the article also mentions a Non-Israeli man mowing down some people in a truck showing there was substantial violence on each side.[/QUOTE] Angry protesters marching on towards you and tearing down your defence. Of course you would open fire. Dam liberals.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29883483] I'm from the Congo. Here police understand that there exists such a thing as extenuating circumstance and simplifying issues to murder, property damage and naivety is silly.[/QUOTE] Wow, if that wasn't morally bankrupt, I don't know what is. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29883782]They thought the protests would be further out instead of right up against the border. They were unprepared and it's not easy to get riot police out on a moments notice.[/QUOTE] Oh ok, so the obvious solution is just mow them down like dogs. Fuck that whole human rights thing. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Isotope;29885556]Pretty much this, wtf are you going to do as a guard? I would be amused to see some of you in their shoes, hugely outnumbered by a crowd that would most likely beat you to death with rocks if they got close enough to disarm you. I suppose you guys think the guards should have just run away? what then, more damage? Let them rampage wherever they want, burning stuff down, potentially bringing in weapons? Put simply, from the information I see so far, if I was in the Israeli's shoes I can possibly see me doing what they did. If I was in the Palestinian shoes I wouldn't be attacking fences like a bunch of savages in front of armed personnel that's for sure.[/QUOTE] If I saw the border fence being smashed, my first thought would be to get some fucking backup or riot control. You see, I'm a person who has rational thought. And I don't immediately jump to the conclusion of 'OH LETS GUN THESE SANDPEOPLE DOWN'. The men who did this, did it because they knew they could get away with it, and didn't want to do anything else. In contrast, what about the LA Riots? How many groups of pissed black people were slaughtered because they were looting and attacking others? When did the National Guard just unload into a group? They didn't, because even though the US has an issue with human rights, it's smart enough to NOT outright commit total massacres on its borders.

Listen to this: If Israel laid their weapons down today, there would be no more Israel tomorrow. If everyone around Israel laid their weapons down today, there would be no war tomorrow.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;29889542]Listen to this: If Israel laid their weapons down today, there would be no more Israel tomorrow. If everyone around Israel laid their weapons down today, there would be no war tomorrow.[/QUOTE] A Benjamin Netanyahu quote. Same guy who went ahead with building settlements after the Palestinians said they'll agree to the peace deals if they don't. Mind you, he did it because he wanted votes. So yeah, you sure know how to pick your influences. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] btw, you don't know what you're talking about notoriousspy.

The Israel's won that land during the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War]Six-Day-War[/url]. It's Israel's land now. The Palestinians never had a homeland, they were nomads.

You can't win land from nomads. You just contradicted yourself. Even then, you think it's perfectly ok to just move in, remove, a lot of times with force, people from their land so the Jews from Brooklynn can have a summer house?

Jordan controlled that land, not the Palestinians. [quote]The Israel's won that land during the Six-Day-War. It's Israel's land now.[/quote] It is unrealistic for Israel to keep control over the West Bank. A country just can't control a hostile population of more than 2 million people, against their will.

This is implying Netanyahu is building settlements in Jordan - he is not.

The land was from Syria, not Palestine. Now Palestine is trying to claim that land. If your referring to Israel taking the land by force, it was in self-defense. Syria attacked first and Israel took the land.

[QUOTE=amute;29890166]This is implying Netanyahu is building settlements in Jordan - he is not.[/QUOTE] It was/is essentially a no-man's land. After the break of the Israeli independence war, Jordan invaded into what was the Mandate of Palestine and occupied the West Bank. They annexed it by 1951.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;29890193]The land was from Syria, not Palestine. Now Palestine is trying to claim that land. If your referring to Israel taking the land by force, it was in self-defense. Syria attacked first and Israel took the land.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and you and CaptainHoe need to get your stories straight. Even then: So if someone mugs me in an alley, that alley is now mine?

Uh, what? That's comparing apples and oranges.