Bananaman Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 .................before this rather unpleasant character falls up and down the stairs several times before impailing himself on an umberella repeatedly? http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-New...2BEldad%2BRegev Or am I being cynical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Error Sorry the page that you are looking for does not exist. Please use your browser back button to return to your previous page. Or alternatively visit one of our sky sites listed below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 Error Sorry the page that you are looking for does not exist. Please use your browser back button to return to your previous page. Or alternatively visit one of our sky sites listed below. Sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 They took them to the beach and, according to witnesses, Kuntar shot Danny in front of his daughter as she begged him not to kill her father. He then bludgeoned the head of the little girl repeatedly with his rifle butt until she was dead. "Woe betide the people who celebrate the release of a beastly man who bludgeoned the skull of a 4-year-old toddler," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in a statement Vile, vile piece of shite. I've really got proper upset about this. Admittedly something that happenend a long long (reatively) time ago. But this cancerous pile of puke was welcomed back as a hero? Nope. Eh? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I hope I can always be in the very background and never ever get involved. Makes me very very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I imagine the Israeli's have a 500 lb bomb ready for him if they ever got the chance. A major point of issue though is this: how much difference is there between bludgeoning a child to death with a rifle butt and allowing a child to be blown to smitherines as so called collateral damage from that 500 lb bomb. Too many people living and dying by the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I give it less than a couple of weeks, and they'll all be at it again big style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 A major point of issue though is this: how much difference is there between bludgeoning a child to death with a rifle butt and allowing a child to be blown to smitherines as so called collateral damage from that 500 lb bomb. Well, I would have said the difference between the disgusting intentional act and the accidental unintentional act is a factor of about a gazillion. Shame on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 A major point of issue though is this: how much difference is there between bludgeoning a child to death with a rifle butt and allowing a child to be blown to smitherines as so called collateral damage from that 500 lb bomb. Well, I would have said the difference between the disgusting intentional act and the accidental unintentional act is a factor of about a gazillion. Shame on you! Neither could be called 'unitentional' - except by someone who accepts the excuses made by militaristic apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 P.K. I admit there is no question mark, but I was asking a question. I suspect my views are closer to yours than you think. But "unintentional" is a difficult word. There is a deliberate calculation that civillians will die as a result of these types of operations - such as dropping a 500 lb bomb on a militant. The Israeli's attitude is that these casualties are worthwhile considering the value of the target. Some times the target is engaged in military activity in a civillian area - in which case he can be ultimately held responsible - but under the Geneva conventions the Israelis must still protect civillians and not use excessive force in their operations irrespective of whether the militant disregards military law or not. Not fair I know, but two wrongs do not make a right, and that is what makes us different from them. Other times the target is not engaged in military activity, but is at home with family, walking/driving in the street etc. In this case the justification for significant civillain casualties is even harder. In both these cases the use of excessive force resulting in civillian casualties would be a war crime - Israel very strongly justifies its actions and says it tries to protect civillains, is not excessive etc. The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc disagree and have accused the Israelis of excessive force. I am somewhere in the middle - I believe they don't deliberately target civillians - so in some ways I agree with you - they don't intentionally attack them as a suicide bomber undoubtably does. But I feel the calculation of the strategic value of these types of attack is massively underestimating the consequences of the resulting civillian deaths. My main point is that these types of operations do result in large numbers of civillian casualties - whether these deaths are excessive or not is an angels-on-a-pin type argument. But my opinion is that they feed militancy and result in Israel loosing the strategic battle while winning the tactical one. Tactically and militarily Israel, the US, even the Brits, basically cannot be defeated - but strategically the militants run rings around them. Hence a despicable child murderer, a man with zero humanity and a rabid desire to avenge his in-group is welcomed by that in-group as a hero with hundreds of thousands of people seeing his actions as a victory for their cause. I see Israel's insufficient regard for civillian casualties being a major part of that - unintentional though those deaths may have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Neither could be called 'unitentional' - except by someone who accepts the excuses made by militaristic apologists. Well "militaristic apologists" afforded me a wry smile. As you can now target a direct hit on a dustbin from a distance of many many miles in a way there are no excuses. However the military is the executive arm of government i.e. just obeying orders. I'm sure any Israelis would appreciate the irony.. Too many people living and dying by the sword. Post-war Europe created Israel for whatever reason and now we all have to live with the quincequonces. Israel has always stated that all it wants is to be left alone. I believe that to be the case. Unfortunately it's arab neighbours have always rattled their sabres and stated their aim is to "push the Israelis into the sea". The actions of those such as the scum recently released shows it is no idle threat and it would be done with no quarter. So yes I agree that the Israelis are heavy-handed but I don't think it forments any extra hatred. I think as far as arab hatred goes they maxed out on that years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.