Not guilty. The Israeli captain who killed Palestinian schoolgirl

Horsefumbler · 31-08-2010 11:55PM

galwayrush wrote: »

i also feel sad for Israeli families who can't for e.g .go to a restaurant together for fear that the entire family could be wiped out in a terorist attack.

Yes I'm sure there are many in this boat... :rolleyes:

ascanbe · 01-09-2010 12:01AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The more I read and think about it the more people disgust me, how could anyone with any decency do this to a child. What really pisses me off though is that a thread that deals with the senseless slaying of a little girl has less responses in the same time frame as one about someone drowning some puppies, 27 posts in just under an hour and a half from a small handful of posters who could be bothered to post. People have got their priorities all f'cked up if they think the death of a few animals is more important topic of discussion than the slaughter of a child:mad:

Think the dearth of responses has more to do with a general Israel/Palestine thread fatigue; also the nature of this story has probably dissuaded the blindly pro-Israel contingent of Boards from getting involved.

Daroxtar · 01-09-2010 12:04AM

The israeli soldier should be locked up for life for murdering a child. Simple as that. He's dirt and any court who lets him go free is a joke of a court.

Einhard · 01-09-2010 12:31AM

I think that people read stories like this with to a preconceived bias which generally tends to be anti-Israeli, their reaction is coloured by this, all context is thrown out the window, and said bias is confirmed and strengthened. That's why I tend to enter these threads with a degree of trepidation.

However, in this instance I think there can be little doubt but that the actions of the soldier were abhorrant, and the fact that he was acquitted of all charges scarcely less so. As Micky Dolenz pointed out, none of this happened in a vacuum, and context does have to be accounted for, but even so, this was, in my opinion anyway, a shocking and inexcusable action.

It also makes it that bit more harder for people who aren't reflexively anti-Israeli to get their point across, and bring some balance to the debate.

Doublin · 01-09-2010 12:44AM

The talk of context is often used as an excusing factor for the victors but always ignored in their wanting to punish the losers; from Nazi's to Serbia & Iraq today.

Horndawg · 01-09-2010 01:33AM

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

You were pretty much saying that while what happened was sad, or some other such empty platitude, you were reserving judgement as essentially there are two sides to an argument. Utter horsesh*t in this case.

Granted there can be knee jerk, over the top and indeed one sided reactions to the activities of the IDF. But irrespective of where this occured, a supposedly highly trained, professional soldier, in charge of other armed men was, judging by the testimony of some of the soldiers who were present, trigger happy and wound up.

This is not some "civilian" scared out of his mind as he is tasked with defending a position for which he has no training. It is his training as a soldier and an officer that is supposed to enable him to deal with these situations in a manner that is appropriate to his position, situation and armed capabiltities. It's a prime example of pure hatred, a sense of irrefutable justification and a knowing guarantee of a finding of infallibility, as to do otherwise would open up a can of worms for the Israeli Government regarding other questionable actions carried out by their armed forces.

This Israeli Officer murdered a child in cold blood.

So Mickey, to refer to another post as a typical example of a reaction you'd expect from an Irish person on this subject matter is beyond ignorant, dismissive and arrogant with regard to the facts of the subject matter of the discussion.

Einhard · 01-09-2010 01:40AM

Horndawg wrote: »

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

Whoa, down with that sort of thing. MD wasn't condoning what happened, merely pointing out that there is quite often another angle from which to view events, and which might give a different perspective. Too often in reports on Israeli actions this is ignored in the reflexive rush to condemn Israel. That was not the case in this instance however, and Micky Dolenz clearly acknowledged it.

Horndawg · 01-09-2010 01:50AM

Einhard wrote: »

Whoa, down with that sort of thing. MD wasn't condoning what happened, merely pointing out that there is quite often another angle from which to view events, and which might give a different perspective. Too often in reports on Israeli actions this is ignored in the reflexive rush to condemn Israel. That was not the case in this instance however, and Micky Dolenz clearly acknowledged it.

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

El Horseboxo · 01-09-2010 02:04AM

No matter what side of the fence you are on you can not deny that this was the action of a pure scum bag.

Sticky_Fingers · 01-09-2010 02:11AM

Horndawg wrote: »

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

It'll probably be a ban...

All Mickey Dolenz was suggesting that when dealing with Israel and Gaza there are two sides to the conflict We in Ireland only really hear, or choose to hear about the death of Palestinians and seem to have a blindspot when it comes to the murdered Israelis.
For example I wonder how many people knew that 4 Israelis were murdered earlier today by Hamas, you'll probably hear a bit more in the near future as Netanyahu has "ordered the security forces to act without diplomatic limitations in order to catch the murderers" and will certainly hear about the victims of the Israeli response as they will more than likely go overboard and end up killing innocent civilians as often happens. I am in no way condoning their actions any more than those of Hamas but there has been death and suffering on both sides and each must take a share of the responsibility.

Einhard · 01-09-2010 02:18AM

Horndawg wrote: »

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

I was speaking on my own behalf actually. When I see someone personally abused for what I believe to be a misrepresentation of his position, and by extension that of anyone else who happens to share a similar outlook, I tend to do that.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

Oh kissing his ass for sure. Nothing like sucking up to someone you've never met before, especially if he's an all powerful Mod. Hopefully he'll notice and deign to acknowledge my puny existence...

Super-Rush · 01-09-2010 02:41AM

Horndawg wrote: »

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

You were pretty much saying that while what happened was sad, or some other such empty platitude, you were reserving judgement as essentially there are two sides to an argument. Utter horsesh*t in this case.

Granted there can be knee jerk, over the top and indeed one sided reactions to the activities of the IDF. But irrespective of where this occured, a supposedly highly trained, professional soldier, in charge of other armed men was, judging by the testimony of some of the soldiers who were present, trigger happy and wound up.

This is not some "civilian" scared out of his mind as he is tasked with defending a position for which he has no training. It is his training as a soldier and an officer that is supposed to enable him to deal with these situations in a manner that is appropriate to his position, situation and armed capabiltities. It's a prime example of pure hatred, a sense of irrefutable justification and a knowing guarantee of a finding of infallibility, as to do otherwise would open up a can of worms for the Israeli Government regarding other questionable actions carried out by their armed forces.

This Israeli Officer murdered a child in cold blood.

So Mickey, to refer to another post as a typical example of a reaction you'd expect from an Irish person on this subject matter is beyond ignorant, dismissive and arrogant with regard to the facts of the subject matter of the discussion.

Banned.

wes · 01-09-2010 03:07AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

For example I wonder how many people knew that 4 Israelis were murdered earlier today by Hamas, you'll probably hear a bit more in the near future as Netanyahu has "ordered the security forces to act without diplomatic limitations in order to catch the murderers" and will certainly hear about the victims of the Israeli response as they will more than likely go overboard and end up killing innocent civilians as often happens. I am in no way condoning their actions any more than those of Hamas but there has been death and suffering on both sides and each must take a share of the responsibility.

Well, if you want to play the context game, surely it applies to Hamas as well. Sure I could point out the context of them being killed near a Israeli settlement in the West Bank, near Hebron, where Israeli settlers have made the average Palestinians lives hell in that city. Then there is the fact that Israeli's settlers are in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land. Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

sdanseo · 01-09-2010 03:10AM

Horndawg wrote: »

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

Probably just being an ordinary person who had more respect than the call a moderator a cu*t rather than just saying "I disagree"...

Edit: Oh, he's been banned. Carry on...

Sticky_Fingers · 01-09-2010 03:45AM

wes wrote: »

Well, if you want to play the context game, surely it applies to Hamas as well. Sure I could point out the context of them being killed near a Israeli settlement in the West Bank, near Hebron, where Israeli settlers have made the average Palestinians lives hell in that city. Then there is the fact that Israeli's settlers are in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land. Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

Hold up, are you trying to justify the murder of 4 unarmed innocent civilians, one of them a pregnant woman? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have somehow misread your post because otherwise the only possible explanation is that your callous disregard for the lives of people who you feel in some way have it coming is matched only by your sympathy for one side of the conflict.

That can't possibly be right because then by your reckoning the psycho who opened fire on a defenseless unarmed girl would have been equally justified if he applied the same logic except from the other side of the equation. But you can't be proposing that can you, since thats just insane.

wes · 01-09-2010 03:59AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Hold up, are you trying to justify the murder of 4 unarmed innocent civilians, one of them a pregnant woman? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have somehow misread your post because otherwise the only possible explanation is that your callous disregard for the lives of people who you feel in some way have it coming is matched only by your blind devotion to one side of the conflict.

That can't possibly be right because then by your reckoning the psycho who opened fire on a defenseless unarmed girl would have been equally justified if he applied the same logic except from the other side of the equation. But you can't be proposing that can you, since thats just insane.

Interesting reaction. You clearly missed my point. I was just pointing out that the context argument could easily apply to Hamas, but that regardless of the context they still killed people, and I will quote myself here:

wes wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

I think the above shows very clearly that I was arguing against such reasoning. Basically, I could just as easily talk about context for the other side as well, but it doesn't change what was done.

Sticky_Fingers · 01-09-2010 04:12AM

wes wrote: »

Interesting reaction. You clearly missed my point. I was just pointing out that the context argument could easily apply to Hamas, but that regardless of the context they still killed people, and I will quote myself here:

I think the above shows very clearly that I was arguing against such reasoning. Basically, I could just as easily talk about context for the other side as well, but it doesn't change what was done.

Apologies for the misunderstanding

KyussBishop · 01-09-2010 05:01AM

Seriously, what 'context' or 'other point of view' does anyone propose, which warrants downplaying condemnation of a solider shooting dead a 13 year old girl, 100 yards away and of no immediate threat, and then going up to her dead body and emptying the rest of his clip into her? (and then getting completely let off by the court later; is that not completely inexplicable?)

I mean wtf; does anyone downplaying the condemnation, and attempting to diminish the callousness of the shooting (through fabricating justifying 'points of view' which do not fit the facts written in the article), not pause for a moment and have second thoughts about what they're saying, think that maybe it's a bit callous/cold in itself?

I really don't understand that at all, even if someone has little/no knowledge of the Israel/Palestine mess, they should be able to easily see how fúcked up the events are in the article (and a person who is knowledgable about Israel/Palestine even more so).

What motivates anyone to seek ways to explain away/diminish what happened here (or condemnation of it), when all the available information points towards it being a very nasty killing, without any obvious starting point for explaining how it could be justified or a mistake?

Admittedly, through reading threads about Israel/Palestine before, I have become quite cynical towards people who take that stance; I really don't understand it though, so I actually would like to know what motivates it.

Wagon · 01-09-2010 08:23AM

if the girl had a bomb strapped to her and was confirmed as a threat, id understand. but she was scared, so it was a bad bad move on the soldiers part. should have been jailed for a good few years.
i think every army the world over has its bad apples. you can train a cúnt to fire a gun, but they're still a cúnt.

then again what do we know in Ireland? We've never been involved in a war where terrorosts strap bombs to children so we don't know how to react if faced with that possibility.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-09-2010 08:35AM

The actions of the IDF soldier appear questionable, esp. given the evidence provided by recordings and and eye witness accounts from the soldiers under his command.

Also emptying a full magazine at the girl, well it takes some time to accurately fire that many rounds at a target, that would give the impression of a lunatic. But does it matter if the girl was shot once or 17 times?.

She entered an area controlled by the Israeli Defence Forces, and I know from experience its not an easy thing to do. Its also a tactic used by terrorists to draw out a patrol.

Also the report in the articule states the girls schoolbag was shot, and it didn't explode. Meaning it wasn't a bomb, this is false.. Firing at the bag would most likely have disabled a bomb, the fact that it didn't explode mean's little.

From the outset, to me, it would appear as though the officer was following standard operating procedures by targeting an individual entering a security zone, what he was probably negligent of was noting using a little 'cop on' - giving that the child was clearly retreating from the area and was clearly identified as a young child - however shooting a retreating target doesn't make this a murder.

Its hard not to get emotional about the killing of a young child in this manner, esp. when people don't know the situ on the ground.

But the court will have had a lot more evidence to consider than a few paragraphs from a newspaper, and the Israeli's do have a record of prosecuting and convicting their soldiers so I can only believe that the soldier was indeed innocent of the childs murder.

Its just a pity he didn't take on board what his troops were telling him and let the poor child retreat to a place of safety.

dlofnep · 01-09-2010 08:41AM

There's always one who'll look for a way to justify the murder of a child.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-09-2010 08:49AM

dlofnep wrote: »

There's always one who'll look for a way to justify the murder of a child.

Yup, usually the murderer.

But an impartial justice system is there to deal with it.

**I actually came back to clarify the last paragraph.

Given that the child posed no immediate threat to the post, or the personnel manning the post I believe almost every other soldier on Gods earth would have allowed the child to retreat.

But if the soldier acted under the posts order's, their standing operating procedures, then the court had to find him not guilty. As unpalatable as that may appear, thats most likely the reality of the situation.

lisbon_lions · 01-09-2010 08:58AM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

pah tension smension, I believe it was tense around the bogside in the lead up to bloody sunday, still doesnt justify it one wee bit.

nice1franko · 01-09-2010 09:32AM

A lot of the IDF soldiers openly hold nothing but contempt for Palestinians. For example:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirt-Controversy-Images-Slogans-Mock-Gaza-Killings/Media-Gallery/200903315245923

For anyone who can't access the above link, it shows tshirts the Israeli soldiers where wearing.

One shows a woman at her baby's graveside and the slogan says "Better use Durex". An open promotion of ethnic cleansing imho.

Another shows a little boy with a gun and the slogan says "the smaller they are the harder they are to hit".

Another shows crosshairs on a pregnant woman's stomach and the slogan says "one shot two kills".

Sickening stuff... With that insight into their mindset it's not hard to see how these things happen.

KyussBishop · 01-09-2010 09:33AM

Riya Raspy Sinkhole wrote: »

...

Well, yes it does matter that the child was shot 17 times; the guy walked up to her dead body and emptied the rest of his clip into her, that's completely fúcked up and unnecessary.

"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body
...
Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance.

How can that be justified by 'standard operating procedure', i.e. the confirming kill thing mentioned in the article?

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

The girl wasn't even holding the school bag when she was actually shot; at that point she was not even a potential threat, and they still shot her.

Even if this was not deemed murder in court, it's basically as good as. If Israeli law has no means to adequately punish this guy for what he's done, and just lets him off, then the courts/law are not impartial.

While I have not spent a long time reading up on it yet, Israel has a very institutionalized set of laws aimed at discriminating towards Palestinians (e.g. the entire blockade on Gaza is of course written in law), and their settlements no doubt have a very strong set of laws backing them up as well (even if by international law they are illegal).

Their laws regarding military 'operating procedure', and various security zones etc. no doubt have the effect of causing massive, unnecessary civilian casualty as well (judging by almost every Israeli military action in the past), while being extremely lenient on their soldiers (i.e. giving them free reign to effectively murder people without consequence).

nice1franko · 01-09-2010 09:36AM

Riya Raspy Sinkhole wrote: »

...
But if the soldier acted under the posts order's, their standing operating procedures, then the court had to find him not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

"I was only following orders" doesn't cut it anymore. The Israelis, of all people, should know that.

General Zod · 01-09-2010 09:51AM

Riya Raspy Sinkhole wrote: »

Its hard not to get emotional about the killing of a young child in this manner, esp. when people don't know the situ on the ground.

But the court will have had a lot more evidence to consider than a few paragraphs from a newspaper, and the Israeli's do have a record of prosecuting and convicting their soldiers so I can only believe that the soldier was indeed innocent of the childs murder.

he never stood trial for murder.

I'm actually saddened that you will try and justify the killing of a 13 year old girl.

speedboatchase · 01-09-2010 09:56AM

Old news is old - the link is from 2005 FFS. Go back to bed hippies, you can still collect your dole later

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-09-2010 10:04AM

General Zod wrote: »

he never stood trial for murder.

I'm actually saddened that you will try and justify the killing of a 13 year old girl.

You see, I'm not.

I'm saying that if he followed the order's posted on the post, then he couldn't be guilty of murdering the child, and so the prosecution wouldn't have brought those charges against him.

I'm just stating what I believe would have happened thats all.

Face to face with the guy I'd ask (and most likely it was asked)..

"Wtf didn't you listen to your troops - now an innocent child is dead".

Now, if you want you can ask me my own personal opinion on the soldier instead of trying to read my mind!.

The three shots into the head of the child, well its not something I want to dwell upon, 'nor do I want to try imagine whats inside the head of a person who could do that.

Is that any clearer?.

PFL · 01-09-2010 10:36AM

Riya Raspy Sinkhole wrote: »

Yup, usually the murderer.

But an impartial justice system is there to deal with it.

**I actually came back to clarify the last paragraph.

Given that the child posed no immediate threat to the post, or the personnel manning the post I believe almost every other soldier on Gods earth would have allowed the child to retreat.

But if the soldier acted under the posts order's, their standing operating procedures, then the court had to find him not guilty. As unpalatable as that may appear, thats most likely the reality of the situation.

He was the posts commanding officer - acting on his own motives.

Not guilty. The Israeli captain who killed Palestinian schoolgirl

Comments