Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Israel murder 12 people throwing stones

1…810121314

Comments

  • #272
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    keano_afc wrote: »
    But is that not an argument for another day? Its Israeli land, whether you agree with the current border set up or not. The protesters crossed the border into Israel, and therefore put themselves at the risk of harm. Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

    It's not about agreeing with the current border. It's very clear what land the Israeli state should consist of, they illegally occupy vast amounts of land they have no right to. Much of this land should be part of a Palestinian state so resistance to it's occupation is not an incursion.


  • #273
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Luckily for us the whole world does not operate on a simple "they attacked or border well" shoot them ect.

    Actually the whole world pretty much does operate along those lines, including ourselves.

    Although we don't have a physical border with anyone, we do that the sea's - try run an Irish naval vessel and it'll fire on you.


  • #274
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Predalien wrote: »
    Yes it does, you meet a threat with proportionate force, not all guns blazing.

    According to you what is proportionate force against stone throwers? - throw stones of equal size and weight back?.

    God forbid if I was attacked by a stone throwing anybody I don't have it in my arsenal to throw stones back!.. I can fire warning shots, I can fire containing shots but my ultimate deterrent against attack upon my life is the use of lethal force.. I can't reach into my battle vest and take out a magic bullet which won't seriously wound or kill an attacker.

    Battles are won by using disproportionate force, be that in weight of numbers or weapons used.. And of course good tactical awareness.

    Next.


  • #275
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    I'm home gentlemen... Right down to business.

    What was a peaceful protest?.. (since you quoted me).

    I don't think you've ever seen what Israel's border fence looks like have you?.

    As for peaceful protests at them, I've never seen one.

    But thats just me, maybe you have?.

    It was a peaceful protest. Yesterday is known as the Nabka or catastrophe, when the Palestinians were evicted from their land and denied a right to return. The unarmed civilians were protesting the fact they are not allowed to return to their homes or peacefully move on and build a better future for themselves.


  • #276
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    It was a peaceful protest. Yesterday is known as the Nabka or catastrophe, when the Palestinians were evicted from their land and denied a right to return. The unarmed civilians were protesting the fact they are not allowed to return to their homes or peacefully move on and build a better future for themselves.

    You know that Lebanon also denies Palestinians the right to return to Israel (or Palestine if you wish)?.

    Although Palestinians are hated by the Lebanese, the Lebanese authorities won't allow them the right to return.. Neither does it afford them the right to co-exist along with their Lebanese neighbours.

    Even children of the original Palestinian refugee's are refused equal rights in Lebanon.

    The Palestinians are kept from returning, and kept in refugee camps so as to keep a wound festering - most Arab governments don't want this resolved, they want continued international pressure put on Israel because it suits their own political agenda.

    Regardless if there were ever any settlements, Israel was never going to be accepted in any form - this is evident by its neighbours attacking and invading it on the eve of its independence.

    But tbh, thats where politics loses me I'm afraid - I'm really don't have a political head on me.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    The Israeli wrote: »
    steddyeddy - you are so off topic, and I'll tell you why:

    I asked of the people that oppose Israeli's side - Could you do any better if you ruled the country that day? Nobody answered. No, you probably couldn't under those circumstances.
    You could use riot sheilds,tear gas,water canons. you know stuff to break up this kind of stuff?
    Do you think the innocent demostrators expected that Israel would let them put itself in the risk of open burder with an enemy state?
    They knew that it wouldn't be tolerable.
    True they should have known the IDF see palestinian people and supporter as sub-humans
    The people that are going into politics again are going over and over about the same subjects that have been talked about 2 months ago very widely on this forum, and countless times before.
    If you want to denounce Israel for yesterday's killing, I'm ready to listen and answer. But if you denounce, then be fair and explain how Israel could do better Yesterday.

    As I see it from your point of view:

    Palestinians do nothing - they suffer - they win the public sympathy.
    Palestinians cross border - get killed - endanger Israeli security - they win the public sympathy.

    Israel does nothing - it losses.
    Israel protects it's borders - it losses.

    Accordingly to this math the Palestinians should get killed for their own good. The cause justifies the means, ai?

    Do you understand that by being on their side in their actions during yesterday - crossing the border and throwing stones, you give them a back wind. You encourage them to continue. You encourage them to get killed.
    Next time that they attempt it again they will probably come more "ready", and you, yes you, are the people that fear for human lives have encouraged them in the first place.
    You, the people that got shocked by the "massive murder done by Israel". You played to their hands.

    Israel can't win because the "Palestinian people" won't rest until they gets what they want - that's what they say, at least the demostrators.
    If it protects the borders, it looses again. It looses by every little Palestinian provocation. Israel always accounted to give the answers. The Palestinians have no responsibility not for their lives, nor for the stability.

    As someone has said: if you want to talk about politics, open a new thread.
    He's half right. I say, read the previous threads. All is there.

    Heres a tip if israeli want to win public opinions and attempt to bring peace don't destroy what little infrastructure they have stop blocking aid from getting in and FFS make compromises about the illegally occupied terratories in a perfect world israel would move the borders back to where they're legally supoused to be but something will have to give America cant give you ammnesty forever and certainly cant afford to be supplying your millitary forever and with the israelis foreign policy they'd be lucky to last 10 minutes without the support of the US


    Basically Protesters were dumb
    IDF were trigger happy as usual
    and Israel border shouldnt be there in the first place

    This will happen over and over again until both sides compromise and try and make peace instead of killing each other


  • #278
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    keano_afc wrote: »
    The thread is not about borders and who owns what. Its about the reaction of the IDF. Which is why I asked a question you obviously dont want to answer.

    What would I do? Well for a start I wouldnt be occupying someone elses land. The soldiers had no right to be there. Your question could easily have been

    Did germans have a right to shoot allied troops on french soil?
    Would the nazis have been justified in quelling an rebellion on the island of jersey?

    In both cases the attackers should not have been there in the first place the same with israel in this case. So no I wouldnt shoot people who were retuning to their home.


  • #279
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Btw I think its worth mentioning something.

    Whenever I talk about what a soldier would do in similar circumstances, thats not to defend Israel - its just stating a fact.

    Tbh, I think both sides are wrong - in differing ways, but in equal measure.


  • #280
    The Israeli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 413 ✭✭The Israeli


    Wild_Dogger wrote: »
    Palestinian refugees have a fundemental human right to return to their home .

    Isreal breaks international law .

    If you were born in Palestine , and your country was invaded , and illeagly occupied , and your house was torn down and your land confiscated what would you do ?

    2 choices for the Palestinian

    (1) Join three consecutive generations living in refugee camp
    or
    (2) Resist .

    Its plain and simple ,...

    Any resistence to illegal occupation is called 'terrorism' .

    There is a basic Human right to a refugee , and that is the right of return .
    Its clear , and uncomplicated .

    Answers to:
    (1) I think that as to Syria, 67 years is enough time to no longer be in need for a refugee camp.
    (2) Do you agree that by resisting they free Israel of the responsibility to their safety, because Israel has its own concerns? right?

    p.s. do you mean to the occupation before or after the break of 48' war?


  • #281
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    Btw I think its worth mentioning something.

    Whenever I talk about what a soldier would do in similar circumstances, thats not to defend Israel - its just stating a fact.

    Tbh, I think both sides are wrong - in differing ways, but in equal measure.
    Do you blame a soldier for his actions, or the politicians who put him there?


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Do you blame a soldier for his actions, or the politicians who put him there?

    "Blame a soldier" - blame him of what?.


  • #283
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Do you blame a soldier for his actions, or the politicians who put him there?

    Thats a very valid point I think the soldier should be to blame for a lot of his actions (bloody sunday) but there are a lot of places were soldiers should not be in the first place (also bloody sunday). Its a complex issue.


  • #284
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    Btw I think its worth mentioning something.

    Whenever I talk about what a soldier would do in similar circumstances, thats not to defend Israel - its just stating a fact.

    Tbh, I think both sides are wrong - in differing ways, but in equal measure.

    I'd agree that both sides do wrong and have done wrong. I'd just be of the opinion civilised societies would police peaceful demonstrations better.

    Look at the annual G-20 protests. It is the exact same thing with the annual Nabka protests. Authorities know that there may be altercations at the respective protests. So you know they are coming and could potentially turn into a riot. So you prepare. Arm the police at the protests with riot shields, batons, tear gas, water cannons and as a last resort rubber bullets. No one deserves to die at a protest and have live ammunition fired at them.

    That's my opinion, maybe I'm just a softie.


  • #285
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Thats a very valid point I think the soldier should be to blame for a lot of his actions (bloody sunday) but there are a lot of places were soldiers should not be in the first place (also bloody sunday). Its a complex issue.
    Yeah thats what I was getting at... If soldiers are put into a situation where they will do "what any soldier would have done" are they to blame for their actions?

    Where is the line between things being a soldiers responsibility and it being the responsibility of those who sent him?


  • #286
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    "Blame a soldier" - blame him of what?.

    Hes not saying blame the soldier hes asking a very valid question


  • #287
    The Israeli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 413 ✭✭The Israeli


    NTMK -

    And if Israel didn't have water canons at that place?
    Would they stop potential Hizbollah fighters among the crowd?
    Israel fired tear gas - what they do is to take it and throw back. Seen and felt it personally.
    Riot sheilds? You are talking about being in a close range with very potential terrorists. You are talking about people from an enemy state. It also means that for every palestinian you need about two soldiers and if there are 5000 palestinians.. mmm

    You are talking about politics in your the rest of your words.
    I would say that it's tricky because it's an issue of its own. Let's say that your view of occupation doesn't match mine, but.. I do agree that Israel will have to give lands back someday, when Hamas won't be in power or at least accept the Israeli right to exist, and when in Syria there will be a stable and popular and positive authority that will sign on a real peace agreament and not on a worthless piece of paper that its people won't agree to.


  • #288
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    I'd agree that both sides do wrong and have done wrong. I'd just be of the opinion civilised societies would police peaceful demonstrations better.

    Look at the annual G-20 protests. It is the exact same thing with the annual Nabka protests. Authorities know that there may be altercations at the respective protests. So you know they are coming and could potentially turn into a riot. So you prepare. Arm the police at the protests with riot shields, batons, tear gas, water cannons and as a last resort rubber bullets. No one deserves to die at a protest and have live ammunition fired at them.

    That's my opinion, maybe I'm just a softie.

    I wouldn't say your a softie, your a civilian & I'm a soldier so we look at these things differently thats all.

    And btw, I'm with you in agreement that I don't believe civilians should be shot at protests.. But there has to be an ultimate deterrent to taking a soldiers (or policemans) life - and for a soldier in the position of those IDF personnel that choice is the threat of lethal force.

    Look a very, very hypothetical situation for the craic.. I'm on duty tonight and you come jumping over the barracks wall screaming threats at me (look back through the thread - thats what happened at the Leb border).. my choice is to run away (its not really a choice now is it?) or use my weapon to fire warning shots or containing shots - if (god forbid) you kept running at me and I thought my life was in danger I'd shot you.

    I don't mean that to come across as being a smart ass, like I said its a very hypothetical situation.

    But its the situation faced by Israeli soldiers at the border fence, it would be the same in Korea, in an army base on the Isle of Man... Or like I said, the situation as it happened in the midlands prison.


  • #289
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Yeah thats what I was getting at... If soldiers are put into a situation where they will do "what any soldier would have done" are they to blame for their actions?

    Where is the line between things being a soldiers responsibility and it being the responsibility of those who sent him?

    Ok, simple - I don't know, and I don't really care.

    I've really never given it any thought tbh.


  • #290
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    I wouldn't say your a softie, your a civilian & I'm a soldier so we look at these things differently thats all.

    And btw, I'm with you in agreement that I don't believe civilians should be shot at protests.. But there has to be an ultimate deterrent to taking a soldiers (or policemans) life - and for a soldier in the position of those IDF personnel that choice is the threat of lethal force.

    Look a very, very hypothetical situation for the craic.. I'm on duty tonight and you come jumping over the barracks wall screaming threats at me (look back through the thread - thats what happened at the Leb border).. my choice is to run away (its not really a choice now is it?) or use my weapon to fire warning shots or containing shots - if (god forbid) you kept running at me and I thought my life was in danger I'd shot you.

    I don't mean that to come across as being a smart ass, like I said its a very hypothetical situation.

    But its the situation faced by Israeli soldiers at the border fence, it would be the same in Korea, in an army base on the Isle of Man... Or like I said, the situation as it happened in the midlands prison.

    By your logic the germans were right to shoot agaisnt the allied troops who landed in france as from the germans point of view it was german soil and borders.


  • #291
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    The Israeli wrote: »
    NTMK -

    And if Israel didn't have water canons at that place?
    Would they stop potential Hizbollah fighters among the crowd?
    Israel fired tear gas - what they do is to take it and throw back. Seen and felt it personally.
    Riot sheilds? You are talking about being in a close range with very potential terrorists. You are talking about people from an enemy state. It also means that for every palestinian you need about two soldiers and if there are 5000 palestinians.. mmm
    if it came about all of a sudden then goverment/soliders are not to blame they did the best they could the fact that it was organised in public on one of the most used sites in the world
    You are talking about politics in your the rest of your words.
    I would say that it's tricky because it's an issue of its own. Let's say that your view of occupation doesn't match mine, but.. I do agree that Israel will have to give lands back someday, when Hamas won't be in power or at least except the Israeli right to exist, and when in Syria there will be a stable and popular and positive authority that will sign on a real peace agreament and not on a worthless piece of paper that its people won't agree to.

    I agree very tricky situation the borders have to be redrawn no side would be completely happy with whatever is decided but a happy medium needs to be found. I agree with you Hamas need to go and the rising in Syria will hopefully achieve something but its along way off hopefully someday both states can co-exist peacefully but its a long way away


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    n900guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 287 ✭✭n900guy


    None of these small attacks matter; Israel controls the small amount of food and water that gets into the palestinian territories and the amount is understood to be too little to sustain generational population growth. They (Israel) are in this for the next 500 years if necessary bleeding any stability and wealth of the rest of the world (dragging terrorism to the US, UK, etc., ) to ensure steady depopulation generation on generation of palestinians.

    It's the ultimate and most astounding form of anti-semitism that has ever existed - committed by semites on other semites, ironically. There is no ambition for shared government of the region (as in Northern Ireland), or consensus driven regional development. Therefore, the ultimate goal is what is being played out: kill the one half of the semite population, or control their resources so that they will dwindle in population as the decades go by. Remember: Ireland's population halved in a single generation due to famine.


  • #293
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    Cassidy Obnoxious Tonsillitis wrote: »
    I wouldn't say your a softie, your a civilian & I'm a soldier so we look at these things differently thats all.

    And btw, I'm with you in agreement that I don't believe civilians should be shot at protests.. But there has to be an ultimate deterrent to taking a soldiers (or policemans) life - and for a soldier in the position of those IDF personnel that choice is the threat of lethal force.

    Look a very, very hypothetical situation for the craic.. I'm on duty tonight and you come jumping over the barracks wall screaming threats at me (look back through the thread - thats what happened at the Leb border).. my choice is to run away (its not really a choice now is it?) or use my weapon to fire warning shots or containing shots - if (god forbid) you kept running at me and I thought my life was in danger I'd shot you.

    I don't mean that to come across as being a smart ass, like I said its a very hypothetical situation.

    But its the situation faced by Israeli soldiers at the border fence, it would be the same in Korea, in an army base on the Isle of Man... Or like I said, the situation as it happened in the midlands prison.


    I'd hope that the army unarmed CQC training would be good enough for me to tackle him without firing a shot. If not, I'd hope the army training would be good enough for me to shoot him in the leg. But if as a last resort, better me than him and would blow him away.

    But I'm not trained like a soldier and I'd probably never know what it would be like to be put in that situation.


  • #294
    The Israeli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 413 ✭✭The Israeli


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    By your logic the germans were right to shoot agaisnt the allied troops who landed in france as from the germans point of view it was german soil and borders.

    From the point of view of the common soldier, they were right.
    It was a clash between two armed armies.

    There are bottle rules which even we in Israel learn all the time (you may laugh):

    When a soldier/ security officer stands alone in the bottle and faces danger (no superiors) it can open fire only if the 3 conditions have been fullfiled:

    1) the attacker has a leathal tool.
    2) the attacker wants to cause you harm
    3) the attacker is able de facto to harm you or people around.

    For instance:
    if there is a terrorist behind a fence armed with a knife and there is nobody around and he can't reach you, you aren't allowed to open fire.
    In case he runs with the knife towards a group of people you are allowed.

    if he lies on the ground with the knife wounded, or even unconscious with a gun in his hand you still can't open fire.

    If he's wounded but looks like he's going to detonate a bomb, you have to shoot him..
    and other exceptions.
    People were sentenced and jailed for not obeying all the rules. Sometimes the desicion that you have to make between the leagal and the safe is impossible.

    If you have superiors neaby they are incharge but you still can and sometimes must refuse to orders that look definitelly illigal to you like shooting unarmed people if they don't endanger you or the surrounding, stealing, raping and etc.


  • #295
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    I'd hope that the army unarmed CQC training would be good enough for me to tackle him without firing a shot. If not, I'd hope the army training would be good enough for me to shoot him in the leg. But if as a last resort, better me than him and would blow him away.

    But I'm not trained like a soldier and I'd probably never know what it would be like to be put in that situation.

    If you get so close to me that I've to rely on unarmed combat skills I'm in deep poo poo & should have left my weapon in the armoury :P


  • #296
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Throwing rocks at armed soldiers and storming across international borders is a bad idea. More shocking headlines on the hour.


  • #297
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Zillah wrote: »
    Throwing rocks at armed soldiers and storming across international borders is a bad idea. More shocking headlines on the hour.

    The border there crossing, tends to be land occupied by Israel, which changes the context significantly.


  • #298
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    By your logic the germans were right to shoot agaisnt the allied troops who landed in france as from the germans point of view it was german soil and borders.

    Of course the German soldiers were right, they were at war:confused:


  • #299
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,891 ✭✭✭speedboatchase


    wes wrote: »
    The border there crossing, tends to be land occupied by Israel, which changes the context significantly.

    Doesn't change that it was a monumentally ill-advised decision on the protestor's part - they didn't have to die.


  • #300
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    speedboatchase wrote: »
    Doesn't change that it was a monumentally ill-advised decision on the protestor's part - they didn't have to die.

    Yes, what they did was stupid, but at the same time, I am surprised that the IDF were not better prepared. The protests were organised publically, and there are smaller protests in the same area each year.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    n900guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 287 ✭✭n900guy


    speedboatchase wrote: »
    Doesn't change that it was a monumentally ill-advised decision on the protestor's part - they didn't have to die.

    They have nothing to lose. It's not like they are supported in developing communities and stable hospitals, schools and have thigns to hope for. Those faciltiies get the sh it blown out of them by Israel. Push them back down the hierarchy of human development and then people start to think of killing themselves - along ith others, in desperation.


Advertisement
Advertisement