Israeli officers use a palestinian teenager as a human shield... priceless!

Page: 1 2
May 9 2007, 7:42 pm
And if the solution was half as good as Solomon's, it would solve the problem!

The wisdom of Solomon has no answer for someody who says, "Okay, cut the baby... but I get to pick my half first!"

Well, actually, the wisdom of Solomon would dictate that one of the women make the cut and the other one choose, to keep it honest.
May 9 2007, 7:43 pm
Bahamatt wrote:
Worldweaver wrote:
Jt, Silk's analysis was probably more accurate than the BBC's slander fest. They bias all their articles, and it's about as bad as it gets there.

All they did in that article was cite their sources and put what they said... where is the slander?


You may notice their particular use of adjectives, no attempt to ask for any Israeli opinion(or more precisely them pretending to ask the Israeli side by talking to 'Rabbis for Human Righs') or them claiming he was beaten by Israeli police(not likely) before he was put on the car.
May 10 2007, 2:10 am (Edited on May 10 2007, 2:24 am)
Oh come off of it, World. Israel is not a saint. It's got serious imperialist ambitions in the area, expands whenever it can, has little to no concern for human rights or the Geneva Convention, and doesn't give a screw about 'collateral damage'. Palestine isn't great, either, but I find the way you constantly treat Israel as the victimised party quite annoying. They're not the underdog. They're the top of the pile down there. They have better technology and a stronger military then any other group in the middle east.
May 10 2007, 4:01 am
Worldweaver wrote:
You may notice their particular use of adjectives, no attempt to ask for any Israeli opinion

"Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said: "It's unclear what happened, we do not expose civilians to physical damage willingly."

or them claiming he was beaten by >Israeli police(not likely) before he >was put on the car.

"Rabbis for Human Rights also say that the boy was beaten by Israeli police before being arrested."

It seems to me that they are simply reporting what they said, they made no attempt to agree or disagree with the statement.

May 10 2007, 12:00 pm
@Jp: I'm sure having more military might and technology than any other group would be a matter of great comfort to them, if it were just "any other group" arrayed against them. Hell, they could probably give up their "secret" nuclear arms and demobilize half their army if their enemy groups would just line up and come a them one at a time like the extras in a Chuck Norris movie instead of rushing in the moment such weakness was perceived.

No, Israel isn't a saint. You don't need to point to any thing they've done to prove this... the fact that it's still standing proves it's not a saint. It's a function of sainthood that we can only admire saints as such after they're dead, usually at the hands of enemies they declined to fight off.
May 10 2007, 12:01 pm
@Jp: I'm sure having more military might and technology than any other group would be a matter of great comfort to them, if it were just "any other group" arrayed against them. Hell, they could probably give up their "secret" nuclear arms and demobilize half their army if their enemy groups would just line up and come a them one at a time like the extras in a Chuck Norris movie instead of rushing in the moment such weakness was perceived.

No, Israel isn't a saint. You don't need to point to any thing they've done to prove this... the fact that it's still standing proves it's not a saint. It's a function of sainthood that we can only admire saints as such after they're dead, usually at the hands of enemies they declined to fight off.
May 10 2007, 12:40 pm
Chuck Norris FTW!
May 10 2007, 12:40 pm
Nobody here's a saint or ever will be....at least to my knowledge(especially considering that most of the people in this thread are atheists). No country's a "saint". but does not being absolutely pure give the BBC the right to sit there and be highly biased against the "underdog". that would be like saying that the United States(with the help of 20 or so other countries) were the bad guys when they invaded Afghanistan. That's not the case in either story. I agree 100% with peaceful protest, but I also agree with an eye for an eye, so if the Israeli Police decided that they wanted to use a protester as a deterrent, then so be it.
May 10 2007, 2:40 pm
My overall slant hasn't really changed... I think it was a good solution to the problem. I just would've handled the teen a little more gently (there's always a grain of truth, in that I imagine they grabbed him by force and slammed him onto the hood) and only done it if there were exposed personnel that needed protection from the rocks.
May 10 2007, 4:59 pm
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Page: 1 2