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 Captain "Right to shoot 13 yr old Girl"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Jacko which soldiers involved would you send?

Just asking...



Very brief question...............if you don't know!

Jako can tell you...................................



Disscussion so far says: those who killed the 13 year old child, in an israeli proclaimed security zone.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I dunno what's worse...

This guy capping the girl or the people justifying it. But hey, Israelis are god-humans, right? Seriously, their God's "chosen people," right? So what gives us the right to question these god-humans' actions?


BTW, Labor Zionists helped Hitler out in WWII...



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaudri
Very brief question...............if you don't know!

Jako can tell you...................................



Disscussion so far says: those who killed the 13 year old child, in an israeli proclaimed security zone.

I meant which of the isreali soldiers?
The one who wounded her?
The one which killed her?
The one that spotted her?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by krotzkrotz

Originally posted by Mycroft
While I agree this event is terrible, I will point out that saying that "Zionist Jews" created this situation is to ignore the contributions of the Arab side in creating and perpetuating this conflict. Further, the comparison with Nazism is repugnant. The attrocities comitted by the Nazis were far more severe, and were based on race.


It is historically relatively evident that the ultimate culprit for the palestine problem is the mismanagement of the jewish immigration situation by the united kingdom sixty years ago, who were unable to take clear decisions, and when the jews turned upon the UK, just left the region out of lack of sufficient care and responsibility.

This is how several extremist zionist organizations emerged, which are in turn responsible for the palestinian conflict, by the overwhelming advocacy of blind violence against the 'racially inferior' arabs. Just a few days ago, a prominent zionist MP qualified arabs as worms. This is still the source of the problem, jewish racial hatred against allegedly inferior races.

The comparison with nazi germany holds, provided you restrict the timescreen to the years 1933-1943. The oppression of jews is surprisingly very similar to the oppression by jews. The rhetoric is the same. Hitler also claimed security reasons for purging the jews : jews were prominently involved in the bolchevist movement, terrorists, and advocated genocide against germans. Hitler claimed to strike preemptively at them, before they come to destroy germany. Jews in the german region of influence were held in ghettoes, and treated like animals, just as palestinians are now held in ghettoes and are being treated like animals by the zionists.

What really remains debatable is if the genocide of jews under the nazis is similar to the genocide of palestinians now. Some argue now, because no systematic massive executions are taking place, some argue yes, by explaining that the systematic murder of palestinian intelligentsia, and cutting them off from economic develeopement possibilities results in thorough misery among them, which could also be qualified genocide. But as i said, this latter point is debatable. However, if one takes the destruction of lebanon into account, the clues for the comparison of the genocides become compelling.




[edit on 16-12-2004 by krotzkrotz]


Gee, how did I know it was going to come to this?


"None of this would have happened if the Jews weren't in Israel to begin with! Here's the matters of fact.

1. Jews have lived in that region since time immemorial.

2. Since the fall of Israel to the hands of the Assyrians, this land has been tossed around like a hot potato between literally every country in the region, with NOBODY bothering to incorporate it, muchless allowing it to coaless into a real country. (Excuse my asking, but didn't the Palestinians EVER bother to apply for sovereignty?)

3. The Jews did the right thing by PAYING FOR every parcel of land they settled on, and had done so since the Zionist movment started back in the 1880s. It was NEVER the size of the Jewish state...IT WAS NEVER A MATTER OF "STOLEN LAND"...it was the fact that Israel once again existed that blew the Muslims away.

I really have only one last note. Will someone please list the Children killed in that Jordanian bombblast last week? It seems, once again, that the press misses that note when it comes to "them" killing "us".

Okay, one final LAST note. Seriously, In your opinion, which Headline graps more attention?

Jordanian bomb blast kills 57

or

Israeli captain says "Kill Three-Year-Old Children".

It's not my intention to highjack this thread, but as you can see, delivery is everything. You just don't get to actaully HEAR the terrorists saying, "Yeah-yeah...about twenty of those killed at the wedding were kids....BEEE...EEFFF...DEEE!"

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I am sorry to disturb you all.

Did you READ the sources I provided?


The captain never fired a burst of gunfire at point blank range into the girl's body

I would like to ask you read the provided sources, please.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
What about this?



A tape recording of radio exchanges between soldiers involved in the incident, played on Israeli television, contradicts the army’s account of the events and appears to show that the captain shot the girl in cold blood.

The official account claimed that Iman was shot as she walked towards an army post with her schoolbag because soldiers feared she was carrying a bomb.

But the tape recording of the radio conversation between soldiers at the scene reveals that, from the beginning, she was identified as a child and at no point was a bomb spoken about nor was she described as a threat. Iman was also at least 100 yards from any soldier.

Instead, the tape shows that the soldiers swiftly identified her as a “girl of about 10” who was “scared to death”.


The tape also reveals that the soldiers said Iman was headed eastwards, away from the army post and back into the refugee camp, when she was shot.

Watchtower
‘It’s a little girl. She’s running defensively eastward’

Operations room
‘Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?’

Watchtower
‘A girl of about 10, she’s behind the embankment, scared to death’

Captain R (after killing the girl)
‘Anything moving in the zone, even a three-year-old, needs to be killed’


Witnesses described how the captain shot Iman twice in the head, walked away, turned back and fired a stream of bullets into her body. Doctors at Rafah’s hospital said she had been shot at least 17 times.

On the tape, the company commander then “clarifies” why he killed Iman: “This is commander. Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over.”

Source:
www.ifamericansknew.org...

Or the Guardian Article:



Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child

A tape recording of radio exchanges between soldiers involved in the incident, played on Israeli television, contradicts the army's account of the events and appears to show that the captain shot the girl in cold blood.

The official account claimed that Iman was shot as she walked towards an army post with her schoolbag because soldiers feared she was carrying a bomb.

But the tape recording of the radio conversation between soldiers at the scene reveals that, from the beginning, she was identified as a child and at no point was a bomb spoken about nor was she described as a threat. Iman was also at least 100 yards from any soldier.

Instead, the tape shows that the soldiers swiftly identified her as a "girl of about 10" who was "scared to death".

Oh Yea, that NICE!

Shooting - no, firing 17 shots - into a Scared 13-Year old Girl, carrying her School-bag.

Act of Terrorism?

Here is the Telegraph Article.

Washington Post Anyone?




[edit on 16/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Going to answer the question?

Or going to ignore it?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Going to answer the question?

Or going to ignore it?

Who? Me? What Questions?

I am Puzzled now!




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Who? Me? What Questions?

I am Puzzled now!




No...the question to jackmo..



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Disgusting


It was on the ITV news just now, and anyone who defends that soldier, or tries to deny the vulgarity of his actions, is a rat.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Disgusting


It was on the ITV news just now, and anyone who defends that soldier, or tries to deny the vulgarity of his actions, is a rat.

So...the solicitors that defended him are rats?
Nice..



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Really, it is frustrating.

Souljah,

You did not read the sources - and some else here did not.

You just C & P old news. Do you really think that is serious?




JPOST

In February this year, in a dramatic about-face, one of the soldiers who testified that he had seen Capt. R. shoot Hams to death at point-blank range admitted to the court that he had lied



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The soldiers lied because they wanted to oust him.

The captain never fired a burst of gunfire at point blank range into the girl's body

Don't you think it might be a very good idea to get some actually facts on this story?


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
The soldiers lied because they wanted to oust him.

The captain never fired a burst of gunfire at point blank range into the girl's body

Don't you think it might be a very good idea to get some actually facts on this story?

So, WHY did the little Girl die then?

Who fired 17-shots in her body?

You do know that she is DEAD right?

How did that happen, according to the non-biased JERUSALEM POST?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Well who did shoot her?
The only testiments we have are from the soldiers but we have no idea who FIRED the shots..



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well who did shoot her?
The only testiments we have are from the soldiers but we have no idea who FIRED the shots..


The Officer shot her. He admitted in court that he shot her at point blank range to confirm the kill. He was still let off though.



The soldier admitted firing two shots from close range to "verify the kill", but denied shooting several more times.
BBC



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The Officer shot her. He admitted in court that he shot her at point blank range to confirm the kill. He was still let off though.

That I didnt see...but that still leaves 15 shots..



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Riwka
The soldiers lied because they wanted to oust him.

The captain never fired a burst of gunfire at point blank range into the girl's body

Don't you think it might be a very good idea to get some actually facts on this story?

So, WHY did the little Girl die then?

Who fired 17-shots in her body?

You do know that she is DEAD right?

How did that happen, according to the non-biased JERUSALEM POST?


Good questions!!


THANK YOU - At long last you are starting to look into the new facts.

I'd suggest you start reading one of the sources I provided, ok?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
This is a case of racial hatred at it's most extreme even here in Northern Ireland during the troubles no one would ever target a child i know this is an oldish story it just made me kinda angry as i'm sure it's effected other's.

The craziest thing about these situation's is if you tell the truth about who's in the wrong suddenly you are the racist.

I've heard of similar incidents like this involving Isreali snipers targeting school's as well It's not popular to bring them up but i don't really care it's relevent.

The saddest thing about this is now that girl's family has a reason to want to strike back and in turn will justify the cycle in Isreali eyes.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
Good questions!!


THANK YOU - At long last you are starting to look into the new facts.

I'd suggest you start reading one of the sources I provided, ok?

Sorry Hunny - nice Try tho, but it did not asnwer my Questions at all.

So, she has been shot 17 times how?

The Captain shot at her at a distance from 100m with his pistol?

Who then "Verified the kill"?

I dont see any of those Questions answered - I just see some writing about this Poor Captain that was supposed to be "Deceived" by his men. Oh Spare me!



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
The Officer shot her. He admitted in court that he shot her at point blank range to confirm the kill. He was still let off though.

That I didnt see...but that still leaves 15 shots..


15 shots or not, the fact he "verified the kill" on a child is sickening. i don't know about Israeli "soldiers" (in quotes, because their behaviour most of the time gives soldiering a bad name), but hell would freeze over before a British soldier would walk up to a wounded child and finish her off!

Geneva conventions anyone? Even if she had been a suicide bomber, she had been netralised and at that point she should have recieved medical attention. The fact she wasn't a bomber is even worse.

Sometimes I really wish Iran would act on it's rhetoric.......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join