Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Israeli Army targeting children ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot

Originally posted by Gazrok
Agreed, but only ONE side uses children as combatants, and that side isn't Israel...


I agree with that. I don't care who you are man, woman or child..... you point a gun at me Im taking your head off.


That makes three of us.

If you are a sick enough bastard to send your children out to do what you are to cowardly to do your self I will send him back to you in a bag.

And his blood will be on YOUR hands for sending him out to die for YOUR cause

[edit on 4-12-2004 by Amuk]




posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
And the Palestinian who walks into a crowded mall or steps on a bus and blows him or herself up and kills anyone around is only targeting the adults right? The terrorist attacking a public building gets the children out first right? Im sure.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Lest we forget that Israel recieve a large sum of Aid that goes towards military endevours; Palenstien has a very primitive army.

I've noticed that those who purport to the high level if 'ignorance' on this site, are using the same ignorance to respond to this.

There is a difference between child combatants being killed, and unarmed child being killed.

Majic,

What makes you think that children are sent to throw rocks at tanks? Have we ever wondered why they are throwing rocks? Have we ever realized that Israel is on illegal land, commiting the most human rights violations in the world, and thanks to the U.S., has never been demonized for any of thier acts in the media?

Deep



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Zero, I was not only refering to Palestinians. Timothy Mcveigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists also. They showed no remorse or care for the children in the day care center at the federal building in Oklahoma City.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
There is a difference between child combatants being killed, and unarmed child being killed.
Deep


I agree. The murder of any child is wrong.

But wouldn't those who send their children to fight also share the blame for children being shot by accident? If your side is arming 9 year olds and sending them out with bombs strapped on them should you be suprised that your children are treated as the enemy? Just like when you use the booby trap wounded should you be suprised when your wounded are just shot and left where they lay?

I am not taking Israel side both are wrong, I am just saying there case would would be stronger if THEY THEMSELVES werent murdering there kids by sending them to kill.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

as posted by ZeroDeep
What makes you think that children are sent to throw rocks at tanks? Have we ever wondered why they are throwing rocks? Have we ever realized that Israel is on illegal land, commiting the most human rights violations in the world, and thanks to the U.S., has never been demonized for any of thier acts in the media?


When a side is literally teaching and indoctrinating their children to 'hate', about the 'just rewards' to be gained from marytrdom, you have to wonder. "Illegial" is a political word that has been disputed and fought over for how long? Human rights violations are committed on both sides. And the US media has demonized and blasted Israel for its actions. The point of all this ZeroDeep is, if violence and terrorist acts haven't gained Palestine a nation, why do you and others continue to back it and sanction it through your varied responses of: Israel is in the wrong, Israel is the occupier, Israel is on illegial land, Isreal violates the Human Rights, etc., eh?
The cycle will never end, and terrible acts committed by both sides will continue to happen, even after a permanent, agreeable resolution is obtained by and for both entities. In the Arab world, its called a blood fued. One side wins when the other is removed.


seekerof

[edit on 4-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Its hard for me to identify with others saying Israel is wrong, occupying or whatever the case may be. They are a country recognized by the UN. Now I guess I am going to hear that that doesnt matter, yet when people from the US blast the UN everyone jumps on the poster saying yes it does matter.

So with that said, if lets say the Brittish, decided they wanted to take back what was 'rightfully' theirs, the colonies of America, and decided to start a full scale invasion, there would be a fight. Would the US be wrong for fighting back?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
At this point in time it really doesnt matter who started the war. They have to learn to live beside each other and NEITHER side is willing to do that. If you could even get them to try extremists on BOTH sides would make sure it didnt work.

I think the only solution is to just sit back and let them slaughter each other till it makes them so sick of death and blood that they are ready to rien in their more excitable brothers and HONESTLY sit to peace



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I tend to agree Amuk. It seems whatever the rest of the world does the bloodshed in the region will continue. There are fanatic nutjobs on both sides of that conflict that have found ways of justifying their actions to themselves. Generally I speak against war, hate, and killing and I'm not speaking for it in this instance either. But if they are so hell bent on killing eachother maybe the solution is to let them.

Seekerof states it correctly. It's a blood feud and it will never end until the last person and his progeny of the other side is destroyed. Sad but true it seems.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   


When a side is literally teaching and indoctrinating their children to 'hate', about the 'just rewards' to be gained from marytrdom, you have to wonder. "Illegial" is a political word that has been disputed and fought over for how long? Human rights violations are committed on both sides. And the US media has demonized and blasted Israel for its actions. The point of all this ZeroDeep is, if violence and terrorist acts haven't gained Palestine a nation, why do you and others continue to back it and sanction it through your varied responses of: Israel is in the wrong, Israel is the occupier, Israel is on illegial land, Isreal violates the Human Rights, etc., eh?
The cycle will never end, and terrible acts committed by both sides will continue to happen, even after a permanent, agreeable resolution is obtained by and for both entities. In the Arab world, its called a blood fued. One side wins when the other is removed.


Generalizations, too many have been used; you're generalization that Palestinian children are indoctrinated into a "radical-Islamic" mentality is contrived through the actions of a few radicals whose families have been expelled from thier lands --3.8 million-- and forced to live in refugee camps, or live in foreign countries -- Jordan, Syria, Lebenon, and many other countries, and subjected to the most human rights violations commited by any country in the world: Israel: we're talking about the violations that, as seems evident, under U.S. supervision, seem to exluded from the mainstream media in the west, and can only be found in the myriad of works of "dissedents".

I don't see the U.S. media demonizing Israel for it's actions; I see the occasional mention of Isreal shooting and killing political figures, a few civilians that were "proponents" of Hamas, and then this "wall" fiasco, which, among counltess other volitions, was deemed illegal and unjustifiable. But under the presupposition that it detered acts of "terrorism", but yet allowed Israel to seige Palestine with some of most military equipment on that side of the planet, thanks to the you, and your fellow American Tax-payers -- whom, I'am quite sure, don't have the slightest clue what those tax-dollars are going towards. Tell me Seeker, how many times did the Media speak of the UN 242 resolution, which was proposed in 67 by the U.S? Let's take a look at this resolution and what it entails for the Israeli people, and primarily, the people of Palenstine, whome it sought to instate state hood:




Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;


Notice the right of Palenstinians granted? Oh wait, I mean: "LACK THERE OF ". This was used as for a good method of diplomacy for 20 years; then came OSLO, and soon afterwards, the U.S. continued to supply Israel with weapons, and exlude the human rights violations commited be them, but vehemently bringing to light the ones commited by Hamas on a daily basis.

Palenstine has fought for it's inalienable right to statehood, the U.S. and Israel has denied this time after time; Over 3.8 million Palestinians have been expelled from their lands since the illegal occupation of thier land. The U.S. does not give a rats ass about those people;the U.S. has to have utter and aboslute control of the biggest energy reserve in the world; they have to remain the most powerfull political and military clout in that part of the world, regardless of what the world thinks.

The Arab world does not believe in a "blood fued: One side wins when the other is removed ". The Arab world believes in self-determination without the West intervening in thier affairs and looting thier resources.

Deep

PS. It's ILLEGAL, Seekerof, no matter how you look at it. You can't simply say: "well it "was" illegal, but that's beyond us now, and mistakes of the past." This is the attitude that has allowed so many in this world --notably the U.S.-- to get away with so many volitions time and time again. The entire occupation is illegal, simple as that.



[edit on 7-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
bravo, Zero. Oh, and its Lebanon, not Lebenon.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Well as for Israel attacking children. Not quite with the zelous bull the Islamic terrorists seem to do it with.

As for Lebanon, I have no love for them either. A family friend, Lt. Col. William Higgins, a Marine who was serving as part of the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, was kidnapped and murdered by the Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hizballah. Lebanon should have tracked them down but didn't even bother. It was so nice to see his tortured body as they hung him for the world to see. Ohhhh but the Hizballah "freedom fighters" were to afraid to show their face. As all tapes seem to show. They are such Pussies that they are not capable of showing their face. I hope they put pig skin masks on em for the firing squad and maybe a pig testical in their mouth for a gag, save the strip of cloth..... Iran and Syria, countries that give sanctuary to the terrorists, were also culpable.



[edit on 12/11/2004 by just_a_pilot]






top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join