Political Crossfire Forums

logic-rules · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 1786 Location: MINNEAPOLIS

Death

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_3;_ylt=AvKf3gCip2O4Apy_KpEe41AUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

if they are going to die they might as well strap a bomb on themselves and take out some idf

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7419 Location: Petah Tikva

If you start chucking things at a military vehicle your provoking a response. These are strict circumstances and if your going to try and provoke the army your going to get what you want.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

superskippy wrote: If you start chucking things at a military vehicle your provoking a response.

The IDF is used to this though Skip. It's been going on for decades. Why is it now that the IDF decides that the correct response is live fire? Is there something I'm missing here?

Quote: These are strict circumstances and if your going to try and provoke the army your going to get what you want.

You need to add "occupying" before army there.

Are you arguing these guys wanted to die? That they decided chucking rocks was the way to martyrdom? I don't buy it.

mendosan · Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 2292

One of the criticisms of the IDF is poor fire discipline (think thats the technical term). I don't think that its policy to shoot all kids that throw stones.

smo69 · Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 162 Location: NYC

Where's the common sense? Stones and bullets are two different things.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1743 Location: London

slitedeviance wrote: superskippy wrote: If you start chucking things at a military vehicle your provoking a response.

The IDF is used to this though Skip. It's been going on for decades. Why is it now that the IDF decides that the correct response is live fire? Is there something I'm missing here?

Quote: These are strict circumstances and if your going to try and provoke the army your going to get what you want.

You need to add "occupying" before army there.

Are you arguing these guys wanted to die? That they decided chucking rocks was the way to martyrdom? I don't buy it.

Well seeing skippy put up a defense for this not surprising at all. He naturally forgot to put occupying before army, because he views all that land Jewish Israeli land. But conveniently forgets about the other 5 million plus Palestinians, who the Israeli's have been denying rights to for almost 40 years. Ruling the occupied territory's for Tel-Aviv, where the Palestinians have no say completely eludes him.

Why are we there? To err, err, err, err, err, er? It's for security because of these mad Arabs, but we will go into the areas and build settlements right beside them for security? :lol:
Its plain old army protected colonization, and the army is a repressive force. Sometimes needed to crush indigenous up-rises, with lethal military force. A.K.A Security measures. Delusion on the grandest scale. :roll:

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7419 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: The IDF is used to this though Skip. It's been going on for decades. Why is it now that the IDF decides that the correct response is live fire? Is there something I'm missing here?

Well its not like this is a new phenomina, the standing doctrine allows return fire if you are being attacked. And yes we have shot rock throwers before, but it isnt a common occurence out of the thousands that do, but every situation is different and we have had soldiers that have died or been severely wounded by being bludgeoned to death with rocks or having a windshield smashed etc. Every situation is different.

Quote: You need to add "occupying" before army there.

If you want to be truly technical it is up to Jordan to declare it occupied, and we already know what they said. But again that is the fine techical truth not nessacerily the reality on the ground.

Quote: Are you arguing these guys wanted to die? That they decided chucking rocks was the way to martyrdom? I don't buy it.

I'm saying they do it all the time, and I mean all the time. When I was on active duty I had rocks chucked at me, now I never shot any of them but there were times when I shot warning shots to get the groups of people to get away. But they do it to illicite a response which is rarely live fire so they continue to do it. No I dont think they expected to die, but they might have expected a few bullets over their heads and perhaps some rubber rounds or some other response.

Quote: One of the criticisms of the IDF is poor fire discipline (think thats the technical term). I don't think that its policy to shoot all kids that throw stones.

It happens literally thousands of times a year eventually we're going to make a return fire at some incident.

Quote: Where's the common sense? Stones and bullets are two different things.

Stones can still kill and wound and the main threat comes when mobs of people come throwing stones, glass, etc.

Quote: Well seeing skippy put up a defense for this not surprising at all. He naturally forgot to put occupying before army, because he views all that land Jewish Israeli land.

No I dont and I wish that we had withdrawn the settlers if we could, but the facts on the ground remain. Please dont put words in my mouth, I know your better than that.

Quote: Why are we there? To err, err, err, err, err, er? It's for security because of these mad Arabs, but we will go into the areas and build settlements right beside them for security?

Whether you recognize it or not the settlements were and remain a vital security tool creating islands of control and defense against movement and potential attacks and are self defensible. They allow bases of deployment and give strategic positions to our control.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: if they are going to die they might as well strap a bomb on themselves and take out some idf
wow.....
So if you assault some armed soldiers and get killed as a result that means you should have performed a suicide attack instead?
Atleast you openly support terrorism.

Quote: The IDF is used to this though Skip. It's been going on for decades. Why is it now that the IDF decides that the correct response is live fire? Is there something I'm missing here?
It's also not the first time I've seen the IDF kill people for this, with rubber bullets or real ones. What should the IDF do? Retreat because they are being hit by rocks (which can of course cause serious harm to the IDF soldiers being assaulted, but nevermind that), so the IDF and all of it's military might should be helpless to a bunch of rock throwing Palestinians? If the soldiers felt their lives were in any sort of danger good on them for meeting force with force.

Quote: Are you arguing these guys wanted to die? That they decided chucking rocks was the way to martyrdom? I don't buy it.
They probably didn't want to die, however they certainly wanted to hurt or kill some Israeli soldiers. It's not like people chucking rocks haven't been killed before and they know this. They knew the risk and the assaulted the IDF.

Quote: One of the criticisms of the IDF is poor fire discipline (think thats the technical term). I don't think that its policy to shoot all kids that throw stones Should they just sit there an be hit by rocks? Use rubber bullets? Those kill people too. Rocks can kill as well.

Quote: Where's the common sense? Stones and bullets are two different things.
Where is the common sense in that the article lists two deaths being attributed to militants. I guess rocks cannot kill or cause major injuries. Care to sit there an let me chuck some rocks at your head? I guess you wouldn't feel that was a threat to yourself? Stones and bullets are two different things, I wonder why these 16 year old kids didn't have the common sense to realize that hitting armed men with rocks would provoke them to shoot back.

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 15230 Location: On Earth

smo69 wrote: Where's the common sense? Stones and bullets are two different things.

You're right. This means that if stones were thrown at Israeli soldiers, they should throw some back. But then again, what do you expect? Israel's occupation is the main reason that Israeli soldiers always expect the Palestinians to give them a warm welcome.

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 908

first of all they're not just throwing rocks, they're slinging them with slingshots. Which send these rocks at very fast speeds. Speeds that are deadly. This isn't just harmlessly tossing pebbles.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

programmusic wrote: first of all they're not just throwing rocks, they're slinging them with slingshots. Which send these rocks at very fast speeds. Speeds that are deadly. This isn't just harmlessly tossing pebbles.
Speeds that are deadly huh? Bullets can have similar effects, except they have such deadly effects somewhat more frequently than stones do.

prometeus · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject:

NEWS FLASH !!! NEWS FLASH!!!

Israeli army announced that all members of the IDF are to immediately undergo rock throwing training, to be able to properly respond to such attacks in the future. Read all the details at: www.readforumrules.com

While loss of life any life it truly sad, what is it that anyone realistically expects? What is the point of such attacks? Really, what is it that it possibly could accomplish? I do not make that decision, but I can guarantee that it would NEVER be the reason Israel would give up any land, period. Whether anyone agrees with that or not it remains a FACT. So I ask again, why even bother?
I'll tell you another thing: I really hate violence, violence of any kind, seen to much of it, far too much, but if you threw a rock at me you would not see another sunrise, that is for sure.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 8448

One would conclude... perhaps... that throwing rocks at the IDF would not be a good idea.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: Speeds that are deadly huh? Bullets can have similar effects, except they have such deadly effects somewhat more frequently than stones do
Well here is an idea agentkgb... don't throw rocks at people with guns.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Rankor and Pissing wrote: One would conclude... perhaps... that throwing rocks at the IDF would not be a good idea.

Or perhaps shooting with live bullets at kids throwing stones is not a good idea. Perhaps other methods such as using tear gas or some other non lethal and which does not cause permanent bodily damage is a good idea.

Venom · Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Posts: 807

Quote: Or perhaps shooting with live bullets at kids throwing stones is not a good idea. Perhaps other methods such as using tear gas or some other non lethal and which does not cause permanent bodily damage is a good idea.
I guess rocks do not case permanent bodily damage? Also as stated before non lethal means can also result in death. Rubber bullets = people still die. Tear Gas, they just wear a simple gas mask. Also these are kids? Two were 16 and one was 20. They are old enough to know what they are doing and old enough to know the IDF has killed people that have thrown rocks in the past. Do you not have a problem with these 3 assaulting the IDF soldiers? Also why should the IDF have to carry tear gas all over the place, they just recently were in a war in Lebanon and had soldiers kidnapped in Palestine as well.

smo69 · Joined: 11 Oct 2006 Posts: 162 Location: NYC

Hmmm, rocks might be deadly, but firing an M16 in the air should break up the crowd. I'm just saying I wouldn't categorize neanderthal methods with advanced firing weapons such as a rifle. But I'm not in that situation now am I? So lets leave it at that.

logic-rules · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 1786 Location: MINNEAPOLIS

Venom wrote: Quote: if they are going to die they might as well strap a bomb on themselves and take out some idf
wow.....
So if you assault some armed soldiers and get killed as a result that means you should have performed a suicide attack instead?
Atleast you openly support terrorism.

please define terrorism before you say i openly support it

even if the kids were throwing rocks at the soldiers it would be excessive force to kill them. but if you read the article, they were throwing rocks at an army jeep, as hard as they can throw, i doubt they are going to do any harm against the best jeeps american money can buy.

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 908

A. The people in this topic are assuming he was intentionally killed, which is unlikely

B. if the perpetrator is caught, which is likely, he will go to jail.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Venom wrote: Quote: Or perhaps shooting with live bullets at kids throwing stones is not a good idea. Perhaps other methods such as using tear gas or some other non lethal and which does not cause permanent bodily damage is a good idea.
I guess rocks do not case permanent bodily damage? Also as stated before non lethal means can also result in death. Rubber bullets = people still die. Tear Gas, they just wear a simple gas mask. Also these are kids? Two were 16 and one was 20. They are old enough to know what they are doing and old enough to know the IDF has killed people that have thrown rocks in the past. Do you not have a problem with these 3 assaulting the IDF soldiers? Also why should the IDF have to carry tear gas all over the place, they just recently were in a war in Lebanon and had soldiers kidnapped in Palestine as well.

The choices are so many. Let's see: how about a taser gun, which does not kill?