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

Not really, you said they get the land because of self-defence. Well in that case, if the Palestinians beat off the terrorist groups like the Irgun or Lehi, then they should get the land.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29885015]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? 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] i'm saying that if a soldier has to choose between his life and a civilians then it's obvious which one he should choose, that's the whole point of a soldier. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29884464]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] i prefer to think of not shooting down protesters as more of a rational idea than a noble one.

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;29844362]Every blind person in the western hemisphere that lets the media make them believe that Israel is the only victim in this and that Palestine is the enemy and is all terrorists. Also, I know Facepunch has a few Israelis so it'll be fun to see their reasoning and justification for this.[/QUOTE] Actually, the only blind defender of Israel joined their armed services a little bit ago. The other few Israeli posters are at least sensible.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29895621]i'm saying that if a soldier has to choose between his life and a civilians then it's obvious which one he should choose, that's the whole point of a soldier.[/QUOTE] Your job is to protect your own people from harm, not the people that want to harm your people. The choice is obvious. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] There is no reason to even need to think about that choice. A soldier is a person, and no reasonable person would be willing to give up their life for nothing.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29885683]lol. knocking down a fence, trampling on Benjamin Netanyahu's prize-winning azaleas = ATTACKING A COUNTRY[/QUOTE] How would you react if 600 people were charging at you throwing rocks, screaming, smashing fences and setting things on fire. Israel has to defend itself, if they don't aggressively stop things like this, there country will fall even faster than it already is. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] They could solve this whole thing by just building "The Great Wall Of Israel"

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29898560']setting things on fire[/QUOTE] Does it actually say this in the report?

[QUOTE=amute;29889039]Wow, if that wasn't morally bankrupt, I don't know what is. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] Oh ok, so the obvious solution is just mow them down like dogs. Fuck that whole human rights thing.[/QUOTE] Aw, aren't you cute. I don't even know what you are arguing, it's just a flurry or moral outrage and exaggeration. You aren't even trying to make a point either, are you? [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;29895621]i prefer to think of not shooting down protesters as more of a rational idea than a noble one.[/QUOTE] There are ramifications for both options and to not consider them and just look at the immediate is not very rational.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29898560'] They could solve this whole thing by just build "The Great Wall Of Israel"[/QUOTE] they'd have to keep rebuilding the wall since they keep expanding settlements :smug: [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29898799] There are ramifications for both options and to not consider them and just look at the immediate is not very rational.[/QUOTE] the ramification for one option was "dead innocent civilians" they probably should not have chosen that one

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29898947]the ramification for one option was "dead innocent civilians" they probably should not have chosen that one[/QUOTE] Yeah, I probably would've picked the option that didn't open fire on civilians and make the country look any worse than it already does.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29898947]the ramification for one option was "dead innocent civilians"[/QUOTE] Innocent? Pretty sure destroying property and attempting to kill soldiers a crime. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29898979]Yeah, I probably would've picked the option that didn't open fire on civilians and make the country look any worse than it already does.[/QUOTE] And what option is that? A soldiers death?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29898947]the ramification for one option was "dead innocent civilians" they probably should not have chosen that one[/QUOTE] In the immediate sure, the other probably would of resulted in dead civilians too. It's not simple like everyone is making it out to be.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29898560']How would you react if 600 people were charging at you throwing rocks, screaming, smashing fences and setting things on fire. [/QUOTE] don't mis-characterize the protesters please. they weren't engaged in an assault, and a few people throwing rocks does not justify firing into a crowd of people [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29899009]In the immediate sure, the other probably would of resulted in dead civilians too.[/QUOTE] no it wouldn't have. there is no reason for you to believe that [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;29898985]Innocent? Pretty sure destroying property and attempting to kill soldiers a crime.[/QUOTE] they weren't attempting to kill the soldiers [QUOTE=DogGunn;29898985]And what option is that? A soldiers death?[/QUOTE] hey they weren't attempting to kill soldiers

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899021]don't mis-characterize the protesters please. they weren't engaged in an assault, and a few people throwing rocks does not justify firing into a crowd of people [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] no it wouldn't have. there is no reason for you to believe that [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] they weren't attempting to kill the soldiers hey they weren't attempting to kill soldiers[/QUOTE] Deadly clashes also took place along Israel's nearby northern border with Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip, near Israel's southern border. The Israeli military said 13 soldiers were lightly wounded in the Lebanon and Syria clashes. In addition, hundreds of Palestinian threw stones at Israeli police and burned tires at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem before they were dispersed. That whole response was wrong.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];29898560']How would you react if 600 people were charging at you throwing rocks, screaming, smashing fences and setting things on fire. Israel has to defend itself, if they don't aggressively stop things like this, there country will fall even faster than it already is. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] They could solve this whole thing by just build "The Great Wall Of Israel"[/QUOTE] Fall the fuck back and get reinforcements. One group of soldiers aren't going to hold off 600 people, who you seem to think are armed to the teeth. What do you say to police who have to deal with Riots in actually civilised countries? Just mow them the fuck down when they get rowdy?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899056]Deadly clashes also took place along Israel's nearby northern border with Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip, near Israel's southern border. The Israeli military said 13 soldiers were lightly wounded in the Lebanon and Syria clashes.[/QUOTE] the clashes were a separate event from the protests [QUOTE=DogGunn;29899056]In addition, hundreds of Palestinian threw stones at Israeli police and burned tires at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem before they were dispersed.[/QUOTE] means it's ok to shoot them?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899021]no it wouldn't have. there is no reason for you to believe that[/QUOTE] Belief is a good word here. As much as you claim that less would have died you have no idea what would have happened just as the rest of us. The riot gets bigger, becomes a massive problem and lethal force has to be used at a later stage to greater effect, the damage and poor handling of the riot allows smugglers to let weapons in resulting in more civilian deaths later, or they could of all just gone home for some random reason. This is all just predicting the future and since we have nowhere near enough evidence to tell, it's a game of bullshit. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899092]means it's ok to shoot them?[/QUOTE] Because they had riot police, because they had the means to handle them. These guys did not and did not have the choice of handling them like that.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899102]Belief is a good word here. As much as you claim that less would have died you have no idea what would have happened just as the rest of us. The riot gets bigger, becomes a massive problem and lethal force has to be used at a later stage to greater effect, the damage and poor handling of the riot allows smugglers to let weapons in resulting in more civilian deaths later, or they could of all just gone home for some random reason. This is all just predicting the future and since we have nowhere near enough evidence to tell, it's a game of bullshit.[/QUOTE] so it's ok to shoot them based on some hypothetical possible future escalation? sorry that's complete bullshit and an absolute contrivance of a justification

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899056]In addition, hundreds of Palestinian threw stones at Israeli police[/quote] Oh....no? This doesn't really constitute "trying to kill soldiers". [QUOTE=DogGunn;29899056]and burned tires at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem before they were dispersed.[/quote] I fail to see how this even harms Israel or the soldiers of the IDF in any way.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899092]the clashes were a separate event from the protests [/quote] ? They were all protests. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899092]means it's ok to shoot them?[/QUOTE] no, but if the demonstrations were going to overrun the soldiers that would result in them getting killed or injured, then yes, it's justified. perhaps they could've handled in a better manner, i.e. have been better prepared with people equipped to deal with it, but they weren't. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899141]Oh....no? This doesn't really constitute "trying to kill soldiers". I fail to see how this even harms Israel or the soldiers of the IDF in any way.[/QUOTE] what a useless post. i too can take snippets out of articles.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899102]Belief is a good word here. As much as you claim that less would have died you have no idea what would have happened just as the rest of us. The riot gets bigger, becomes a massive problem and lethal force has to be used at a later stage to greater effect, the damage and poor handling of the riot allows smugglers to let weapons in resulting in more civilian deaths later, or they could of all just gone home for some random reason.[/QUOTE] Regardless of this, why in the name of fuck was the first option to just open fire? When other Western countries have riots/protests, they usually call in some riot police or fire rubber bullets/tear gas, so why is this just a matter of foreseeing some possible drawback to [I]not shooting the protesters?[/I]

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899102] Because they had riot police, because they had the means to handle them. These guys did not and did not have the choice of handling them like that.[/QUOTE] so the value of a human life fluctuates based on circumstances? so it's wrong to kill people, except when you don't have the resources to not kill them? that's not how the justification behind riot police forces works

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899153]what a useless post. i too can take snippets out of articles.[/QUOTE] This might be a valid point if they weren't the exact same snippets you used to show that the protesters were rowdy enough to justify offensive action against them.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899134]so it's ok to shoot them based on some hypothetical possible future escalation? sorry that's complete bullshit and an absolute contrivance of a justification[/QUOTE] And the only reason for you saying they had a choice of not shooting them that did not result in more deaths is your own hypotheticals. You have just as much ground in this as me because there are no facts beyond what we dream up. Armchair generalling to a degree but more just bullshit.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899202]This might be a valid point if they weren't the exact same snippets you used to show that the protesters were rowdy enough to justify offensive action against them.[/QUOTE] ? I pointed out that the soldiers were injured. they obviously had the intention to hurt and injure, so i have no idea what you're suggesting anymore.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899153]no, but if the demonstrations were going to overrun the soldiers that would result in them getting killed or injured, then yes, it's justified. perhaps they could've handled in a better manner, i.e. have been better prepared with people equipped to deal with it, but they weren't.[/QUOTE] [B]They threw rocks and broke down a fence or two. You cannot act based on inaccurate predictions of what the protesters 'might' do.[/B]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899153]? They were all protests. [/QUOTE] the article never states that. it just refers to them as clashes (and the "deadly" part refers to the deaths of people other than israeli soldiers, since soldiers were only listed as "lightly wounded")

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899218]? I pointed out that the soldiers were injured. they obviously had the intention to hurt and injure, so i have no idea what you're suggesting anymore.[/QUOTE] So if someone tries to injure a soldier (Ex: punch in the face, throw a rock, etc.) then that soldier has justification to just shoot them up?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899219][B]They threw rocks and broke down a fence or two. You cannot act based on inaccurate predictions of what the protesters 'might' do.[/B][/QUOTE] you are correct, and so the soldiers protected themselves from injury in the best way they could.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899218]? I pointed out that the soldiers were injured. they obviously had the intention to hurt and injure, so i have no idea what you're suggesting anymore.[/QUOTE] who is "they"? the unanimous palestinian hivemind? because one soldier got hurt by a palestinian or syrian miles away does not justify shooting some other palestinian or syrian [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;29899237]you are correct, and so the soldiers protected themselves from injury in the best way they could.[/QUOTE] the best way they could would be to walk away, not kill people

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899185]Regardless of this, why in the name of fuck was the first option to just open fire? When other Western countries have riots/protests, they usually call in some riot police or fire rubber bullets/tear gas, so why is this just a matter of foreseeing some possible drawback to [I]not shooting the protesters?[/I][/QUOTE] Because they did not have the option of that. The riot police were likely tied up in the other protests going on and they do not normally deploy rubber bullets to border patrols. They were unprepared and that was their only option. And draw back from the border? They are defending a border, not a piece of ground. To set up a perimeter after falling back to prevent the riot from spreading even further would have required more manpower than just reinforcing the point. It is a stupid thing to suggest.