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

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899234]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] if you're out numbered 1:20, and they have shown they have the intention to injure, then perhaps their method of self preservation was correct?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899237]you are correct, and so the soldiers protected themselves from injury in the best way they could.[/QUOTE] And they made the wrong move. Shooting into a crowd of civilians because a few of them may have injured a soldier isn't justified. Not by anything. [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;29899269]if you're out numbered 1:20, and they have shown they have the intention to injure, then perhaps their method of self preservation was correct?[/QUOTE] It was not. This was a crowd of hundreds of protesters, and simply because one or even a majority of them had the intent to injure soldiers (this of course isn't provable, simply hypothetical) doesn't justify shooting into the crowd.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899269]if you're out numbered 1:20, and they have shown they have the intention to injure, then perhaps their method of self preservation was correct?[/QUOTE] the intention to ineffectually mildly injure does not warrant indiscriminate weapon fire

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899191]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] When there are other lifes possibly in the balance, yes. It is a loss either way and they chose the safer option than to risk it. Riot police are there to give them an option so they don't have to. It is a third option, one that works well, unfortunately it was not available to them. That is only a problem of preparation and one they must learn from.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899252]because one soldier got hurt by a palestinian or syrian miles away does not justify shooting some other palestinian or syrian[/quote] i agree - take up problem with the IDF who were ill prepared. but if the soldiers were going to be injured, then yes, they had reason to shoot. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899252]the best way they could would be to walk away, not kill people[/QUOTE] lol - this isn't worthy of a response.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899266]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.[/QUOTE] This still doesn't justify shooting into a [B]crowd of hundreds.[/B] Regardless of whether or not they could call on riot police, this is not justified.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899310] lol - this isn't worthy of a response.[/QUOTE] you just responded to it :downs: [editline]a[/editline] i'm not suggesting they leave the border, i'm suggesting they walk a few feet back or maybe stand next to a tree so the rocks don't get them or do literally anything other than engage in all out combat in response to rocks being thrown. if any of the protestors actually crossed the border then by all means they could apply the applicable response to them as proscribed by law, but... [editline]b[/editline] i mean i know that the whole "it was either we fired upon them or they pelted us to death with small rocks and then overran our country" dichotomy is appealing in a jerry-bruckheimer-action-movie sorta way but they probably had a few more options than those two

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899299]the intention to ineffectually mildly injure does not warrant indiscriminate weapon fire[/QUOTE] how do you know their intention was to "ineffectually mildly injure"? are you part of the "unanimous palestinian hivemind"? that's a very specific thing to be so sure of.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899314]This still doesn't justify shooting into a [B]crowd of hundreds.[/B] Regardless of whether or not they could call on riot police, this is not justified.[/QUOTE] Why does everyone have a fetish for justified? They fired into a group of hundreds and only killed a few so it doesn't matter how many there were. They had a choice of two evils and there was nothing that they could have done.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899307]When there are other lifes possibly in the balance, yes. It is a loss either way and they chose the safer option than to risk it. Riot police are there to give them an option so they don't have to. It is a third option, one that works well, unfortunately it was not available to them. That is only a problem of preparation and one they must learn from.[/QUOTE] So you're saying the reason they have riot police isn't to actually try and maintain order, but simply so that they don't have to just shoot into crowds? And when riot police isn't available, shooting into the crowd is a valid way to stop a protest or riot?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899271]And they made the wrong move. Shooting into a crowd of civilians because a few of them may have injured a soldier isn't justified. Not by anything.[/quote] it might not be acceptable - but i'm sure israel would prefer to see their soldiers live. and to them, that is justification to shoot in the direction of people who would be willing to hurt or kill them. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899271]It was not. This was a crowd of hundreds of protesters, and simply because one or even a majority of them had the intent to injure soldiers (this of course isn't provable, simply hypothetical) doesn't justify shooting into the crowd.[/QUOTE] and then be overrun because the soldiers didn't do anything about it.

Israel is a terrible country, I can't understand why people actually try and defend it.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899339]Why does everyone have a fetish for justified? They fired into a group of hundreds and only killed a few so it doesn't matter how many there were. They had a choice of two evils and there was nothing that they could have done.[/QUOTE] Justification is important because these are soldiers of the IDF, and thus are held to a certain level of scrutiny. A higher level than say, a member of the Mexican Army firing at a drug cartel or something. The mentality of "only killed a few" is simply an untenable point.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899340]So you're saying the reason they have riot police isn't to actually try and maintain order, but simply so that they don't have to just shoot into crowds? And when riot police isn't available, shooting into the crowd is a valid way to stop a protest or riot?[/QUOTE] The goal of shooting into the crowds was to break up the riot, the same thing as what the riot cops were meant to do. For this circumstance, they had no other option and yes, it was the only way to break it up. They could have left it go like many suggest, but that is a matter of risk and one that soldiers are told not to take.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899351]it might not be acceptable - but i'm sure israel would prefer to see their soldiers live. and to them, that is justification to shoot in the direction of people who would be willing to hurt or kill them.[/QUOTE] So what, if one of the protesters killed had no intention of injuring the soldiers, simply because they were in the crowd, that's okay?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899372]Justification is important because these are soldiers of the IDF, and thus are held to a certain level of scrutiny. A higher level than say, a member of the Mexican Army firing at a drug cartel or something. The mentality of "only killed a few" is simply an untenable point.[/QUOTE] clearly you expect them to have an impeccable level where soldiers will die as martyrs. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899382]So what, if one of the protesters killed had no intention of injuring the soldiers, simply because they were in the crowd, that's okay?[/QUOTE] it's impossible to determine the intention of each individual member of the crowd. i'll recommend to the palestinians next time they have a protest to this degree that each wear a sign stating if they're going to willing to kill a soldier if they get a chance.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899372]Justification is important because these are soldiers of the IDF, and thus are held to a certain level of scrutiny. A higher level than say, a member of the Mexican Army firing at a drug cartel or something. The mentality of "only killed a few" is simply an untenable point.[/QUOTE] The point of only a few killed was that it doesn't matter how big the crowd was, they didn't kill that many people. Their justification for it is that things could have gone a lot worse. Using lethal force on a few rioters who are in a dangerous area and trying to infringe upon their borders is a much lesser evil than letting it go out of control.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899329]how do you know their intention was to "ineffectually mildly injure"? are you part of the "unanimous palestinian hivemind"? [/QUOTE] if they had intended on killing soldiers they probably would have brought guns or slings or maybe sharpened sticks

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899384]it's impossible to determine the intention of each individual member of the crowd.i'll recommend to the palestinians next time they have a protest to this degree that each wear a sign stating if they're going to willing to kill a soldier if they get a chance.[/QUOTE] Again, they didn't show "intent to kill". They got through a fence and throw some rocks. "Intent to injure" is not a valid reason to shoot someone.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29899432]if they had intended on killing soldiers they probably would have brought guns or slings or maybe sharpened sticks[/QUOTE] if they brought obvious weapons, such as guns or sticks, they would've known that the IDF would've put them down quick. that wouldn't have ended well for anyone.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899427]The point of only a few killed was that it doesn't matter how big the crowd was, they didn't kill that many people.[/QUOTE] If even one innocent civilian is killed by sweeping, indiscriminate fire it is abhorable. It does not matter how many it was.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29899427] Their justification for it is that things could have gone a lot worse. Using lethal force on a few rioters who are in a dangerous area and trying to infringe upon their borders is a much lesser evil than letting it go out of control.[/QUOTE] this predicates on the assumption that it would have gotten "out of control" which itself predicates on a not-so-kindly worldview of the vast unwashed masses who maybehaps need to be controlled for their own good of course you see

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899439]Again, they didn't show "intent to kill". They got through a fence and throw some rocks. [/QUOTE] that is clearly of your opinion - they have shown that they were not peaceful. i'm sure the protesters would've had no problem killing a soldier if they had the chance. [quote=Megafanx13]"Intent to injure" is not a valid reason to shoot someone. [/quote] Actually, if you feel that you will be injured or killed, in most legal jurisdictions, that is enough reason to shoot at someone.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899459]if they brought obvious weapons, such as guns or sticks, they would've known that the IDF would've put them down quick. that wouldn't have ended well for anyone.[/QUOTE] So if they bring weapons then they'll know to just shoot into crowds, but if they don't then the soldiers know to wait until shooting?

listen bro i'm just saying you gotta keep them in line. you gotta break a few eggs know what i mean

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899490]So if they bring weapons then they'll know to just shoot into crowds, but if they don't then the soldiers know to wait until shooting?[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899484]that is clearly of your opinion - they have shown that they were not peaceful. i'm sure the protesters would've had no problem killing a soldier if they had the chance.[/QUOTE] Again that last sentence is nothing but an assumption. [QUOTE=DogGunn;29899484]Actually, if you feel that you will be injured or killed, in most legal jurisdictions, that is enough reason to shoot at someone.[/QUOTE] If a guy has a knife or a gun pointed at me, or shows some other intent to kill, then I'd agree, however these people were unarmed civilians. Feeling like I might be injured because someone looks like they're running towards me or giving me a bad look isn't a reason to kill someone.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29899528]If a guy has a knife or a gun pointed at me, or shows some other intent to kill, then I'd agree, however these people were unarmed civilians. Feeling like I might be injured because someone looks like they're running towards me or giving me a bad look isn't a reason to kill someone.[/QUOTE] in a mass crowd like these protests, you don't need weapons to be injured or killed. hell just being trampled on or beaten by unarmed people is more than enough to be severely injured or be killed.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899459]if they brought obvious weapons, such as guns or sticks, they would've known that the IDF would've put them down quick. that wouldn't have ended well for anyone.[/QUOTE] but they got shot either way??? lol now you're talking out of your ass. you started off justifying the use of force against an escalated protest but now you're painting it as a premeditated quasi-terrorist attack designed, apparently, to not work just enough to only result in civilian casualties [editline]a[/editline] "hey guys let's kill these soldiers but let's not bring anything we can actually kill these soldiers with so they won't kill us either" isn't much of a terrorist attack now is it

[QUOTE=DogGunn;29899517]what?[/QUOTE] Okay, so if: A: Protesters come with weapons, improvised or otherwise, then shoot immediately? B: Protesters come unarmed, then wait to shoot if they seem 'hostile'?