It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israeli soldiers 'shoot boy for fun'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justanotherperson

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If there's an Israeli and a Palestinian involved, you just know the Palestinian is the innocent party, unless his remains are splattered all over a two-block area and thirty Israeli are also dead or wounded.


Regardless, only one group has control over the peace process and only one group is currently trying to steal land from the other.

God made me do it. Only lunatics or deranged psychopaths would resort to God as an excuse for their actions.


Jew's are stealing what? have you looked at the map back in the day's of king david? there is no palastian state

if i leave my home and return back in 2000 years, do you think you have right to my home?

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Thinker]




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horus_Re
Here You Go Majic...this is from the BBC....

The original article which describes the topic of this thread (Israeli soldiers 'shoot boy for fun') came from AlJazeera.net.

It claims to quote an article in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahranoth that allegedly said, in part:

A group of Israeli soldiers serving in the Gaza Strip have reportedly admitted killing a 15-year-old Palestinian in Khan Yunus for sport.

It also claims that this event took place in March, and that the boy who was killed was named Khalid Sulaiman Mahdi.

The BBC article and commentary you have posted are related to this topic in only the most general of ways, and neither addresses the validity of the topic article.

Nowhere in that article is any claim made that soldiers shot a boy "for fun", nor does it contain any information regarding the death of Khalid Sulaiman Mahdi.

So with respect to the actual topic of this article and questions I am asking, it is irrelevant. I recommend reviewing the topic article: Israeli soldiers 'shoot boy for fun'

If you have any information that may corroborate or refute the Al Jazeera claim that this story appeared in Yediot Ahronoth and that it described soldiers admitting to shooting Khalid Sulaiman Mahdi "for fun", I would be very interested in seeing it.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker

if i leave my home and return back in 2000 years, do you think you have right to my home?

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Thinker]


Hah what a false logic. By your logic, that would mean that France, Spain or any other country can claim large parts of Europe because it's people once have lived there.
Furthermore, for centuries Jews and Muslims have lived in peace.
The whole mess began with the return of mainly European Jews in the 19th century and thereafter, to the area called Palestine. The whole Zionist movememt started in the late of the 19th century with the goal to create a new Jewish state. After hostilities and terrorists attacks (also from Jews, see Stern gang) the UN partioned Palestine:

UN PARTIONING OF PALESTINE IN 1947


in 1948 the state of Israel was officialy declared by Ben Gurion.

Also compare the current Israel with the partion plan of the UN, and you will see how much land the Israelis have conquered or occupied thereafter, and chased away millions of Palestinians into refugee camps.

By your shaky logic, you would have agreed if the Muslims return to Spain and declare a new Muslim state there, as they have lived hundreds of years ago in that region.


[edit on 11-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Spain was under occupation. The spainish were not born after the Islamists attacked spain. It was already there.

Jews were aready there before the arab's.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
Spain was under occupation. The spainish were not born after the Islamists attacked spain. It was already there.

Jews were aready there before the arab's.


Oh and who were the people before Moses? It just show how weak your argument is. You can't just expect the whole area is yours simply because you have lived there 2000 years ago: that is drawing an arbitrary timeline. Why not go 100, or 500, or 1000, or 10,000 years back?

It's all arbitrary, just when the Muslims can draw an arbitrary timeline in Spain and the Middle East. In fact any other country in Europe can draw a subjective timeline and claim large part of the world is their's.

Furthermore, have you seen the 1947 UN partioning of Palestine (see previous reply)? Now compare that with all the lands which the Israelis since then have conquered and occupied, also think of the millions of Palestinians that have been chased away to refugee camps.

Blobber



[edit on 11-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I was just reminded of the scene in Schindlers list, where the Nazi's often shot civilians for sport. So for those who continue to doubt this even happens, let this be a reminder that it has happened before.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Its sad that intelligent poeple like you believe to the Islamic propoganda that lasts since 1947, especially after 11 September.

Its even more sad to see how poeple condem the IDF for killing terrorists but dont bother to condem the same terrorists for their actions.

From serving the US army for some good years, and meeting other armies, I can tell you without any doubts that the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

Do not laugh!

Those guys are fighting day and night a war against "people" who hide behind their own civilians (Palis), and wish to murder Israeli civilians, a war that started long before 1967 or even 1948, a war that is more difficult strategically or moraly than any war that the USA or the UK had fought in the last 50 years.

And even when some soldiers are doing awful things, we must remember that they do not represent even 1% of the IDF, and must remember that they will be punished siriously, as Israel is a country of justice and freedom and democracy.

The US army commanders admire the IDF and we learn from their methods, and this I saw myself.

Its even more sad to read how poeple support the barbaric Arabs, who dont know what human rights are, dont know what a democracy is, and dont know what a justice is.
You are being anti-Israel- the opposite of the Arab nations, when Israel is 10000000000000 times more moral then they are!!!
You choose to believe dictatoric Muslim propoganda while ignore the democratic Israeli efforts.

Its even more sad to read that poeple like you choose to ignore the history and choose to ignore the simple fact the Arabs never wanted to live in peace with the Jews and choosed to abandon the creation of their state (Palestine) as the UN offered in 1948, and then again in 1993 and 2000, and choosed to attack Israel in hope to destroy it instead of a peace 7 times already, while Israel only wished for peace, and happily made peace with Egypt and Jordan when those stopped their efforts to destroy Israel after understood that they will never be able to destroy it.

Therefore Israel had no other way but to fight for its existance and take land during the wars that the Arabs forced Israel to fight.

You should think about your actions gentlemen.

I condem you for being ignorant.





[edit on 11-12-2004 by Justice Fighter]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice Fighter


Its even more sad to read how poeple support the barbaric Arabs, who dont know what human rights are, dont know what a democracy is, and dont know what a justice is.

This line alone shows how ignorant you are, portraying as if all Arabs are extremists and barbaric.



....then again in 1993 and 2000, and choosed to attack Israel in hope to destroy it instead of a peace 7 times already...

If you weren't that ignorant, you would have known that the status of Jerusalem is one of the obstacles in the peace process.



I condem you for being ignorant.

And who are you, again?


Blobber



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If there's an Israeli and a Palestinian involved, you just know the Palestinian is the innocent party, unless his remains are splattered all over a two-block area and thirty Israelis are also dead or wounded.

[edit on 04/12/11 by GradyPhilpott]


Yes, I am sick an tired of the innocent terrorist. This story is another Mulsim LIE. The entire middle east needs to be "sanitized" then Israel will have room to expand. The US needs more OIL anyway. Iraq and Iran divided up betwwen Exxon and Texico would work. (isn't this what you libs think?) The problem here is TERRORISIM, not Israel. Eradicate TERROR like smallpox. Just DO IT.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The problem here is TERRORISIM, not Israel. Eradicate TERROR like smallpox. Just DO IT.


And the problem is that you cannot lesten terrorism without peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unless of course you are willing to give Apache Gunships, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F16's to the Palestinians.

Blobber



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Blogger, Before the Hebrews went to Egypt they lived in what YOU call palestine. After they returned, God told Johsua to kill every living thing there. And I mean evrything. From that monment on there was no one else to claim the land. It belongs to Israel. It was the land of Abraham.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Blogger, Before the Hebrews went to Egypt they lived in what YOU call palestine. After they returned, God told Johsua to kill every living thing there. And I mean evrything. From that monment on there was no one else to claim the land. It belongs to Israel. It was the land of Abraham.


Yeah, and my Easter Bunney killed all the people in Germany 20,000 years ago, and declared that land is "my promised land".

I guess it's just where we stand regarding religion, right?

Edit: my opinion is that they should all live in peace. If Jerusalem is such an obstacle in the peace process, perhaps we whould stick with the UN plan of 1947 to make it an independent city state.


Blobber

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Actually yes!

Allright, I must understand that your knowladge of history is not enough. Well let me refresh your thoughts about the claim that Israel appeared of nowhere and stole the holy land as seen by the Muslim propoganda.
(This is a long read, however you should read this in order to get rid of the Muslim propoganda ideas).

The Romans (Italy) were those who named the land of Israel as Palestine when it was under their occupation. So this is just another name to the land of Israel as same as the ancient name- Zion.

The origin of the word "Zionism" is the biblical word "Zion," often used as a synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). Zionism is an ideology which expresses the yearning of Jews the world over for their historical homeland - Zion, the Land of Israel.
The hope of returning to their homeland was first held by Jews exiled to Babylon some 2,500 years ago - a hope which subsequently became a reality. ("By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion." Psalms 137:1). Thus political Zionism, which coalesced in the 19th century, invented neither the concept nor the practice of return. Rather, it appropriated an ancient idea and an ongoing active movement, and adapted them to meet the needs and spirit of the times.

The core of the Zionist idea appears in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (14 May 1948), which states, inter alia, that:

"The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom."

The Foundations of Zionism

The idea of Zionism is based on the long connection between the Jewish people and its land, a link which began almost 4,000 years ago when Abraham settled in Canaan, later known as the Land of Israel.

Central to Zionist thought is the concept of the Land of Israel as the historical birthplace of the Jewish people and the belief that Jewish life elsewhere is a life of exile. Moses Hess, in his book Rome and Jerusalem (1844), expresses this idea:


"Two periods of time shaped the development of Jewish civilization: the first, after the liberation from Egypt, and the second, the return from Babylon. The third shall come with the redemption from the third exile."
Over centuries in the Diaspora, the Jews maintained a strong and unique relationship with their historical homeland, and manifested their yearning for Zion through rituals and literature.

While Zionism expresses the historical link binding the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, modern Zionism might not have arisen as an active national movement in the 19th century without contemporary antisemitism preceded by of centuries of persecution.

Over the centuries, Jews were expelled from almost every European country - Germany and France, Portugal and Spain, England and Wales - a cumulative experience which had a profound impact, especially in the 19th century when Jews had abandoned hope of fundamental change in their lives. Out of this milieu came Jewish leaders who turned to Zionism as a result of the virulent antisemitism in the societies surrounding them. Thus Moses Hess, shaken by the blood libel of Damascus (1844), became the father of Zionist socialism; Leon Pinsker, shocked by the pogroms (1881-1882) which followed the assassination of Czar Alexander II, assumed leadership in the Hibbat Zion movement; and Theodor Herzl, who as a journalist in Paris experienced the venomous antisemitic campaign of the Dreyfus case (1896), organized Zionism into a political movement.

The Zionist movement aimed to solve the "Jewish problem," the problem of a perennial minority, a people subjected to repeated pogroms and persecution, a homeless community whose alienness was underscored by discrimination wherever Jews settled. Zionism aspired to deal with this situation by effecting a return to the historical homeland of the Jews - the Land of Israel.

The history of aliya, much of which was in direct response to acts of murder and discrimination against Jews, provides strong proof for the Zionist argument that a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, with a Jewish majority, is the only solution to the "Jewish problem."

----------
So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists (mostly Arabs and Muslims) claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1900 years since the last time that the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1900 years ago.

And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1000 years ago.

You all with me? 1900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.

Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was ... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071, when Palestine came under the rule of the Suljuk Turks. That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and - briefly - French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a 1900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arabs imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may return control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map in full!



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Bah where did you copy pasted that from?

Again, the whole essence of your article for the foundation of Israel is going back to a subjective chosen time. Why not go back 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or even 1000 years ago? Or perhaps 10,000 years ago?

No, because in your subjective chosen timeline there can be found some weak "rights" for Israel.
Using that logic, France and England can choose to go back a subjective timeline and claim big chunks of Europe.

For hundreds of years Muslims and Jews have been living together in peace. The whole mess started when mainly "Europen Jews" migrated back to Palestine and, under the Zionist movement (see e.g. Herzl), wanted a new Jewish State.

The UN partioned Palestine in 1947, the state of Israel was officialy declared in 1948. And even after that, the Israelis have occupied and conquered more lands, and chased millions of Palestinians into refugee camps.

Blobber


[edit on 11-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It's sad to hear such a thing can happen.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I wonder why did Israel occupy more land- maybe this becuase the Arabs forced Israel to fight for its existnace 6 times already and missed 3 times the chance to build their Palestine? Nah it cant be the reason...

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Justice Fighter]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice Fighter
I wonder why did Israel occupy more land- maybe this becuase the Arabs forced Israel to fight for its existnace 6 times already and missed 3 times the chance to build their Palestine? Nah it cant be the reason...

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Justice Fighter]


so israel attacking the arabs first in some cases isnt a factor in this.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice Fighter
I wonder why did Israel occupy more land- maybe this becuase the Arabs forced Israel to fight for its existnace 6 times already and missed 3 times the chance to build their Palestine? Nah it cant be the reason...

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Justice Fighter]


Oh wait, so you would have agreed when the US occupied for example Germany, Japan, Grenada, Iraq after they have overwon the enemy? Figures


Oh and about the peace process: why not give Jerusalem back to the Palestinians? I am sure the Palestinians would have accepted the peace process.

Blobber

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
When the enemy continues to kill them, YES.

Oh and lets see- Israel gave back the Sinai an area 3 times larger than the entire state of Israel because Egypt finally agreed to make peace- meaning that Egypt agreed to stop and try throwing all the Jews in to the sea.
Israel got out of Lebanon when all the PLO terrorists agreed to stop the killing.

Israel took those lands to pull out the fire from the range of its cities, and its too bad for you for not knowing it.

If you choose to base your ideas on propoganda instead of historical facts then its your personal problem.
Read about the Israeli-Arab wars in sites like wikipedia and then you wont publish rubbish.

---Why should Israel give them back the Israeli capital- Jerusalem?
Its your problem for putting Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, the same I can put Gaza as the Palestinian capital.
Or perhaps thats because of the fact that Jerusalem and the Temples were built by Israeli kings- long before Islam existed?
Ignorance out!



[edit on 11-12-2004 by Justice Fighter]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice Fighter


Israel took those lands to pull out the fire of the range of its cities, and its too bad for you for not knowing it.


if that is true then why are they importing jews from all around the world (mainly from africa and other 3rd world countr)
and putting them in occupied land.

if they truely wanted to get out of the firing line they wouldnt throw more people in giving the Palistian militants reason to attack.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join