Israel demands correction from Sanders,It only killed 532 Palestinian kids in summer 2014!

[Boston1]

The courts rarely confict IDF soldiers, so I call B.S. on your claim. The fact that there was a conviction indicates pretty strong evidence.

The fact that it was convicted is also an indication that the soldiers in question were not acting according to procedure, but individually, demonstrating that use of human shields is contrary to Israel's policy. At least in this particular case.

Yes, they were not acting lawfully, the courts ruled on it decisively in 2005.

Sadly, I think the whole "neighbor procedure" has become just another way to sell Israel as "evil". Israel can't win in the court of public opinion no matter what they do. I DO believe that it was originally intended to save lives rather than sacrifice civilians or create human shields. Its pretty easy to see how a Gazan would see their house surrounded by IDF soldiers and think, "Hey, hey, wait a minute, who are you looking for? Okay, I'll go get him". What happens then? The target is arrested, and the house and all the people in it are safe. The alternative would be for the soldiers to breach the home with weapons and in the ensuing mess people, including innocents, might be caught in the cross fire and be killed. And the house gets wrecked or even bombed. It seems a reasonable idea to me.

This case was not a "good neighbor" one though.

Sadly, I can also see this being exploited. And yes, I can see why it would seem to be using human shields. However, it is interesting that only one volunteer/human shield was killed in all the instances where this was put to use, indicating to me that it was properly employed in a way that for the most part kept the "volunteers" safe.

Isn't one one too many? Especially if children are being asked?

I think the anti-Israel crowd has unrealistic expectations of what is possible to accomplish in a conflict of war where the combatants are not distinguishable from the civilian population, deliberately so (a war crime, btw) and where combatants hide themselves within and amongst the civilians. It must be exceedingly difficult to conduct such a war.

And yet, Israel has managed to be very restrained under such difficult circumstances and the number of dead in Gaza is shockingly low when comparisons are made to other real conflicts rather than to some impossible ideal that Israel seems to be held to.

I think that using human shields is simply wrong and children should never be asked to volunteer for it.

Again you are equating someone being asked to open their bags for the cop to see into with a terrorist surrounding him/herself with children while they fire on the Israeli's

There really is no comparison

 

[Coyote]

The courts rarely confict IDF soldiers, so I call B.S. on your claim. The fact that there was a conviction indicates pretty strong evidence.

The fact that it was convicted is also an indication that the soldiers in question were not acting according to procedure, but individually, demonstrating that use of human shields is contrary to Israel's policy. At least in this particular case.

Yes, they were not acting lawfully, the courts ruled on it decisively in 2005.

Sadly, I think the whole "neighbor procedure" has become just another way to sell Israel as "evil". Israel can't win in the court of public opinion no matter what they do. I DO believe that it was originally intended to save lives rather than sacrifice civilians or create human shields. Its pretty easy to see how a Gazan would see their house surrounded by IDF soldiers and think, "Hey, hey, wait a minute, who are you looking for? Okay, I'll go get him". What happens then? The target is arrested, and the house and all the people in it are safe. The alternative would be for the soldiers to breach the home with weapons and in the ensuing mess people, including innocents, might be caught in the cross fire and be killed. And the house gets wrecked or even bombed. It seems a reasonable idea to me.

This case was not a "good neighbor" one though.

Sadly, I can also see this being exploited. And yes, I can see why it would seem to be using human shields. However, it is interesting that only one volunteer/human shield was killed in all the instances where this was put to use, indicating to me that it was properly employed in a way that for the most part kept the "volunteers" safe.

Isn't one one too many? Especially if children are being asked?

I think the anti-Israel crowd has unrealistic expectations of what is possible to accomplish in a conflict of war where the combatants are not distinguishable from the civilian population, deliberately so (a war crime, btw) and where combatants hide themselves within and amongst the civilians. It must be exceedingly difficult to conduct such a war.

And yet, Israel has managed to be very restrained under such difficult circumstances and the number of dead in Gaza is shockingly low when comparisons are made to other real conflicts rather than to some impossible ideal that Israel seems to be held to.

I think that using human shields is simply wrong and children should never be asked to volunteer for it.

Again you are equating someone being asked to open their bags for the cop to see into with a terrorist surrounding him/herself with children while they fire on the Israeli's

There really is no comparison

He wasn't being asked to open HIS bag. He was asked to open several bags at gunpoint, that might have contained explosives.

 

[Boston1]

The courts rarely confict IDF soldiers, so I call B.S. on your claim. The fact that there was a conviction indicates pretty strong evidence.

The fact that it was convicted is also an indication that the soldiers in question were not acting according to procedure, but individually, demonstrating that use of human shields is contrary to Israel's policy. At least in this particular case.

Yes, they were not acting lawfully, the courts ruled on it decisively in 2005.

Sadly, I think the whole "neighbor procedure" has become just another way to sell Israel as "evil". Israel can't win in the court of public opinion no matter what they do. I DO believe that it was originally intended to save lives rather than sacrifice civilians or create human shields. Its pretty easy to see how a Gazan would see their house surrounded by IDF soldiers and think, "Hey, hey, wait a minute, who are you looking for? Okay, I'll go get him". What happens then? The target is arrested, and the house and all the people in it are safe. The alternative would be for the soldiers to breach the home with weapons and in the ensuing mess people, including innocents, might be caught in the cross fire and be killed. And the house gets wrecked or even bombed. It seems a reasonable idea to me.

This case was not a "good neighbor" one though.

Sadly, I can also see this being exploited. And yes, I can see why it would seem to be using human shields. However, it is interesting that only one volunteer/human shield was killed in all the instances where this was put to use, indicating to me that it was properly employed in a way that for the most part kept the "volunteers" safe.

Isn't one one too many? Especially if children are being asked?

I think the anti-Israel crowd has unrealistic expectations of what is possible to accomplish in a conflict of war where the combatants are not distinguishable from the civilian population, deliberately so (a war crime, btw) and where combatants hide themselves within and amongst the civilians. It must be exceedingly difficult to conduct such a war.

And yet, Israel has managed to be very restrained under such difficult circumstances and the number of dead in Gaza is shockingly low when comparisons are made to other real conflicts rather than to some impossible ideal that Israel seems to be held to.

I think that using human shields is simply wrong and children should never be asked to volunteer for it.

Again you are equating someone being asked to open their bags for the cop to see into with a terrorist surrounding him/herself with children while they fire on the Israeli's

There really is no comparison

He wasn't being asked to open HIS bag. He was asked to open several bags at gunpoint, that might have contained explosives.

We don't know that. From the article it can only be deduced that he was asked to open "a bag"

Any bag might contain explosives so saying that it "may" have contained explosives is a bit disingenuous.

Again I'd have to read the court transcripts before I'd be willing to pas judgement. But its important to note that the NGO as well as the UN has cried wolf enough times that one can no longer just give the Arab Muslims the benefit of the doubt. The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

 

[Humanity]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

I think you might find that the court did not consider the soldier's actions "civilized" handing out a conviction for "inappropriate conduct"...

Another zionut trying to deny the truth and deflect with BS!

 

[Boston1]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

I think you might find that the court did not consider the soldier's actions "civilized" handing out a conviction for "inappropriate conduct"...

Another zionut trying to deny the truth and deflect with BS!

We don't know what the court even heard so its a tad difficult to just assume what the guilty verdict was all about.

While the terrorist supporters seem perfectly willing to jump the gun and assume some heinous act occurred. I'll take the more prudent approach and wait till all the evidence is heard.

It looks like the soldier asked the Arab Muslim to open up his bag for inspection. Something MPs and police do regularly. I've seen countless hippies on the side of the road laying out their stuff for the nice officer on my various trips around the country. Its common practice.

Hardly equivalent to hiding behind the skirts of a woman or thrusting a child into the path of a bullet in open combat.

 

[Roudy]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

I think you might find that the court did not consider the soldier's actions "civilized" handing out a conviction for "inappropriate conduct"...

Another zionut trying to deny the truth and deflect with BS!

Yeah...right...we need to look to Palestinians for "civilized" and "appropriate" behavior!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So how many jews died at Auschwitz, and how many were killed

About 1.5 million people died at Auschwitz, with over 90% of them being Jewish. Overall, according to the best estimates, about 5,700,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. (Estimates for those who died in the Soviet Union are very sketchy, so that's what tips the scales to a rounded 6 million.) After meeting the likes of fangs and Odious in here, I can fully understand how it happened. In addition, about 5 million non-Jews were killed (Gypsies, gays, physically and mentally handicapped, POW's--mostly Russian, political dissidents--including Christian clergy, etc.) Some camps, such as Dachau, actually had more non-Jewish victims. But Hitler's real goal and passion was to wipe out the Jews.

 

[Coyote]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

It looks like the soldier asked the Arab Muslim to open up his bag for inspection. Something MPs and police do regularly. I've seen countless hippies on the side of the road laying out their stuff for the nice officer on my various trips around the country. Its common practice.

Where does it say that? In none of the articles is that indicated.

 

[Boston1]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

It looks like the soldier asked the Arab Muslim to open up his bag for inspection. Something MPs and police do regularly. I've seen countless hippies on the side of the road laying out their stuff for the nice officer on my various trips around the country. Its common practice.

Where does it say that? In none of the articles is that indicated.

?

 

[Coyote]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

It looks like the soldier asked the Arab Muslim to open up his bag for inspection. Something MPs and police do regularly. I've seen countless hippies on the side of the road laying out their stuff for the nice officer on my various trips around the country. Its common practice.

Where does it say that? In none of the articles is that indicated.

?

The articles never say it's the child's bag, only that there were bags in the cellar where a group of people were sheltering and the soldier thought they might contain explosives so he forced a little boy at gun point to open them.

That's known as using a human shield.

 

[Boston1]

The soldiers on the other hand trying to defend Israel have generally acted in a civilized manor.

It looks like the soldier asked the Arab Muslim to open up his bag for inspection. Something MPs and police do regularly. I've seen countless hippies on the side of the road laying out their stuff for the nice officer on my various trips around the country. Its common practice.

Where does it say that? In none of the articles is that indicated.

?

The articles never say it's the child's bag, only that there were bags in the cellar where a group of people were sheltering and the soldier thought they might contain explosives so he forced a little boy at gun point to open them.

That's known as using a human shield.

The Op Ed piece also didn't say it wasn't the Childs bag.

And the soldiers were armed, were they supposed to drop their weapons before asking the kid to open his bag ?

Nothing they did would have been regarded as "not" at gunpoint.

Again one injury in the thousands of instances and I'm not buying this whole human shield argument.

Nor does asking a kid to open his bag compare to a guy firing at Israeli's from behind a few dozen children

 

[theliq]

Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes

What bullshit yall got to justify this?

Sanders, although misguided, is a man of principles. This is proven by the fact that, although Jewish, he might disagree with Israel's actions. You, however, are nothing but a bigoted Hitler wannabe. This is proven by your disgusting signature line, which is supposedly an "old Polish saying". That makes you lose all credibility. You are motivated by nothing but irrational Jew-hatred. You will use Sanders, a man of principles, to destroy Israel and then send him off to the firing squad. How do I know this? Because you have previously threatened my life for my crime of being Jewish!

No Odium just made a very valid point......How strange you are accusing Odium of Jew-Hatred.......ad-nausium Zionist RESPONSE but Shit all the same,Odium caught you out .....YET AGAIN

 

[theliq]

Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes

What bullshit yall got to justify this?

Sanders, although misguided, is a man of principles. This is proven by the fact that, although Jewish, he might disagree with Israel's actions. You, however, are nothing but a bigoted Hitler wannabe. This is proven by your disgusting signature line, which is supposedly an "old Polish saying". That makes you lose all credibility. You are motivated by nothing but irrational Jew-hatred. You will use Sanders, a man of principles, to destroy Israel and then send him off to the firing squad. How do I know this? Because you have previously threatened my life for my crime of being Jewish!

Foolish Response as Usual..............Yuk

 

[theliq]

That Sanders is Jewish has little bearing on anything. American Jews are not Israelis.

Rubbish,they glean enough CASH from the American Tax-Payer,moreover ask an America Jew if the USA were in Conflict with Israel..Who Would They Support..Israel or America............you are a silly man Kinetta...by the way Kinetta is an Ashkenazic Yiddish name from Romania .......steve

 

[Boston1]

You are like the drunk at the bar next to me.

Suggesting Odious is making a point is like mopping up the effluvium at the end of the evening.

Neither of you have a clue and neither of you are able to forward a coherent argument

What I do know is that Bernie admitted he didn't know the numbers and Israel provided them.

So whats the problem

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israel demands correction from Sanders: it killed only 532 Palestinian children in summer 2014

Damn you Sanders ya got the number to high they ONLY murdered 532 kids!

When your terrorist buddies fire rockets from civilian areas, sometimes the crappy rockets kill Pallie civilians.
And then when the Israelis fire back, the Pallie civilians your terrorist buddies use as shields sometimes die.

It's very sad.

 

[theliq]

Israel demands correction from Sanders: it killed only 532 Palestinian children in summer 2014

Damn you Sanders ya got the number to high they ONLY murdered 532 kids!

When your terrorist buddies fire rockets from civilian areas, sometimes the crappy rockets kill Pallie civilians.
And then when the Israelis fire back, the Pallie civilians your terrorist buddies use as shields sometimes die.

It's very sad.

For Palestinians...That's True Todd..steve

 

[theliq]

You are like the drunk at the bar next to me.

Suggesting Odious is making a point is like mopping up the effluvium at the end of the evening.

Neither of you have a clue and neither of you are able to forward a coherent argument

What I do know is that Bernie admitted he didn't know the numbers and Israel provided them.

So whats the problem

I don't drink in Sleazy Bars..............LOL

 

[Boston1]

You are like the drunk at the bar next to me.

Suggesting Odious is making a point is like mopping up the effluvium at the end of the evening.

Neither of you have a clue and neither of you are able to forward a coherent argument

What I do know is that Bernie admitted he didn't know the numbers and Israel provided them.

So whats the problem

I don't drink in Sleazy Bars..............LOL

Yet you blither on incoherently

Just like a drunk in the bar.

But what does that have to do with Bernie Sanders ?

 

[theliq]

You are like the drunk at the bar next to me.

Suggesting Odious is making a point is like mopping up the effluvium at the end of the evening.

Neither of you have a clue and neither of you are able to forward a coherent argument

What I do know is that Bernie admitted he didn't know the numbers and Israel provided them.

So whats the problem

I don't drink in Sleazy Bars..............LOL

Yet you blither on incoherently

Just like a drunk in the bar.

But what does that have to do with Bernie Sanders ?

I don't drink in Sleazy Bars for the 2nd time