sniper posts pic of child in crosshairs

Originally posted by 11I11
There are really no words to describe how disgraceful this is. Since when was it ok to aim a gun at a child?

You make it sound like its something new and unique to the IDF soldiers, I am pretty certain this happens all the time for those in combat and oppressive roles.

This shows just how disconnected those in armed forces become from the world they are seeing everyday.

israel ,this is so disgusting,i thougth you were soldiers ,not cowards......dont support the shame.

reply to post by superman2012


Who does? Because if you are going to say Palestinians I don't think they would be very effective shields against the IDF.

reply to post by vind21


That's was a pathetic analogy. Targeting someone with a rifle is a little different than driving by kids on the sidewalk. Maybe if everyday you drove by those kids you trued to get close enough to brush their clothes it would be compareable, but still a horrible analogy. Intent is key.

reply to post by butcherguy


You aren't buying it because you don't want to. The IDF has made a public statement about it, you are clearly looking at Palestinian territory in the picture. If the sight is off a bit it could be two things: either a shot that would need that type of adjustment (snipers generally don't have the target dead in the cross-hairs) or it could be because the photo being taken threw it off. How would he be named? The soldiers march up "hey we were just aiming our gun at the back of your head and snapping photos can we have your name in case this becomes a story? You must not have a firm grasp of what it is over in the strip.

This is what it is.

reply to post by Tardacus


A photographer wouldn't be using an iphone, a scope attached to a gun, and instagram. He wouldn't post it for people to smirk at, and this guy isn't a photographer.

reply to post by WhiteHat


People had a problem with the picture immediately. What you mean is until the mass media got ahold of it the outrage was local and consisted only of Palestinians and probably a few activist Israelis.

I don't normally write short posts but with this thread I have only one question for readers and posters:


What if this were your Child or a Child directly related to you?


Comments?


Much Peace...to all Children everywhere...

If he hadn't have taken that picture, we wouldn't be aware of it to speak on it.

^ With that in mind, maybe it was intentionally taken for this very reason.

It's a great picture, worth a thousand words.

let it burn....thats all i gotta say, let it burn

IDF should DIAF. The world would be a much better place.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also worth noting that the news headline omitted that nationality of the sniper.

You can't be an Israeli soldier without being Israeli. You can't even drive on the highways that crisscross the West Bank unless you are and Israeli. It's a shame that our tax dollars support apartheid in that region against the Arab population.

I find the picture as thought provoking and see it from an artistic standpoint.

I have seen movies with the same type of thing and never became outraged over it.

If the kid was shot it would be a different story but he wasn’t as a photographer he is a success.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by stirling

 

Haha I know because then he ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY THE IDF lol.
And it could easily be photo shopped without causing a potential situation or death.

Hold on back up a second. How do you come to the conclusion that the kid was ever in harm’s way?

First you need a bullet in the chamber and second someone has to pull the trigger obviously no one pulled the trigger and unless you have a video of him chambering a round you are simply making up the story as you feel fit.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


It's like a sign, like a symptom of our time.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

What people don't realize is that every police action nowadays has "back up" in the form of sniper teams. They were there on the roofs during "Occupy Wall Street". They are there on the roofs 24/7 around Washington DC. They are there every time SWAT is called out.

We will never see the pics of what they see in their retical. Go ahead and try. Snipers watch everything through their scope in their field of fire. Its their job.

Its okay to shoot people in the back of the head when they least expect it I guess, just not okay to show it.

Is it okay to show it? Not here.

Its pretty amazing how everyone knows who is behind the camera here. This could easily be a propaganda photo to make you think its an Israeli (seems more likely although the Americans were stupid enough to pose with the prisoners they were torturing). Believe none of what you hear and 10% of what you see.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
If he hadn't have taken that picture, we wouldn't be aware of it to speak on it.

^ With that in mind, maybe it was intentionally taken for this very reason.

It's a great picture, worth a thousand words.

yes exactly, snipers probably do this all the time, they get bored so they use their scope as binoculars to check out the women,or check out some kids eating lunch to see what they are eating,or watching some pickpocket getting his ass beat by the guy he just tried to steal a wallet from.They probably even use the scope to peep into peoples windows to see what they are up to.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
As an image, ignoring for a moment the implications of its aquisition, I find this to be striking, stark, and appealing in its simplicity and composition.

However, looking past the pure visual impact of the image (which is considerable) the fact of the matter is, that in order to gain that image, the person who captured it had to rest a rifle in a position which saw it lined up with the back of the head of a small child. Even if said child was a rampant purse thief, cat molestor, arch cretin and street thug in training, this would be a totaly unacceptable situation.

Unless the sniper had an idea that this child was in fact in the middle of masterminding a rocket attack, the sniper should have just passed on. Even if the photographer was merely struck by the perfection of the effect that the image would have had as a photograph, rather than taking the picture for giggles, he should have thought again and decided against it.

That said, I think it is worth noting that now this image does exist, and it is not without depth, not without emotional impact. It is a scene of innocence, veiwed through a lens of war. This is art so pure and raw that I have found myself deeply moved by it, and not negatively either. In a way, the image is beautiful, not because the child is in the crosshairs, implying his doom, but because the child remains intact, defying the sniper by sheer presence.

Of course we know that the kids head wouldnt survive contact with a round launched at it. But that is how the image itself impacted me.

Have you considered that this was taken and posted deliberately to provoke discussion? That this may be a soldier that is disturbed by what he and others are asked to do? What extremes a police state goes to - and make no bones about it, Isreal is a police state. They have become what the cry "Never Again" was cried against. You become what you fear and hate. The Nazis have won, in Isreal and around the world.

I can't stand shooter media and war porn. It's bad enough that every five minutes on the conspiracy-net that someone brings up how Kennedy was shot, and shows that video and image again.

One of these days though it's not going to be a bullet but a laser beam. It sort of depends on you how you want to see the image. Did the person in the sight get injured or not? Regardless of nationality, who is behind the sight and who is in front of it, you can tell pretty quickly what your natural state is regarding sights and people. If you are war-prone, you will immediately imagine that sight being connected to a gun and imagine the subsequent event to be a bullet shot. If you are not war-prone, you won't connect the sight to a deadly action, and so it won't be so foul.

Look, this is baby-drama. Where the media takes the babies and the kids and puts them under sadistic scenarios. I don't like it. An event happens, and it's bad, but to repeat the baby-drama in front of men and women who are naturally going to feel responsibility in front of children even if they are from someone else's family or country, where is the morality in telling a story?

I found a connection! Obviously from the start a psy op, but it could be deterrent media to create enough propaganda to deter women from becoming involved in war. Papers were just signed to put women in more military places, here comes the baby-drama.

Personally, of all the savagery humankind has been in time, this image is one of the facts of war that you will have to stomach if you ever want to survive on Earth. There are times in history in war when children are brought into the mess that the grownups start. I'm thinking about in parts of LA, children are given weapons and involved in drugs. There are children who have lost parents and family in the warring countries, and what choice do they have but to be involved? Men under orders to eliminate everything, they aren't going to open an orphanage. No, the savage truth, my poor soft TV watchers, is that in war, children are killed off, with their parents.

And you thought throwing a puppy over a cliff was the worst thing. In the picture, the kid is still alive. It's not so bad until some sicko starts posting videos of dead kids.