Israeli soldier convicted of Manslaughter

[Lipush]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

That's a lie. But then again, it's not surprising that you'd think that.

 

[Phoenall]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

So its the number of Jews which is the problem? Or the equal social status of Jews which is the problem? Or is it the desire for self-determination which is the problem?

What, exactly, is the aggression? The number of Jews? The social status of Jews? The self-determination of Jews?

Seriously, when you say it is the "settler colonial project" that is the problem, you can only mean there are too many Jews, the Jews have too much social status or that the Jews should have no rights to self-determination. Which is the problem?

And as you always do when you dont have an answer you resort to a video produced by pallywood productions that is packed with propaganda and LIES

 

[Phoenall]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

I can see the problems here...

P F Tinmore how do you reconcile it? Clearly the Palestinians have combatents even though not a formal militia.

Israel's military attacks Palestinian civilians. Israel's civilians attack Palestinian civilians.

But, if a Palestinian attacks either troops or civilians the floodgates of terrorist accusations open up to a big round of name calling.

Why the double standard?

GET IT RIGHT

Israel responds to attacks from illegal weapons that are seen as war crimes and terrorism by the majority of the world. They are not in defense of anything as they are pre meditated attacks orchestrated by hamas, seeing as they have thousands of illegal weapons primed and ready to fire. Israel attacks the site of illegal weapons firing, manufacture and storage, all legal targets under the Geneva conventions. Firing an illegal rocket from a civilian complex in Khan Yunis makes the civilian complex a valid target from then on. What is it you call the Jews again, baby killer, child murderer, terrorist, illegal immigrant and a whole host of other name calling

 

[Phoenall]

Sure. And I have no problem with combatants attacking a military force. Where you get in trouble with me is when you dislike the consequences of that action.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Not applicable as there is no colonisation taking place according to the UN

 

[Phoenall]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

Oh come on! This does not mean that one has the right to attack without reprisal.

Israel has always been the aggressor. It is the Palestinians who respond.

How about example's then, like 1947 when the arab league declared war on the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

Until you actually start looking and then it jumps out and bites you

 

[Coyote]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

No he was still a potential threat, more so than the Israeli children the arab muslims seem to target, so was still possibly armed and a threat.
It is only an act of murder if the act was pre meditated, as in the IDF soldier became engrossed in killing an arab muslim and thought about nothing else for days or weeks beforehand. A spur of the moment act is manslaughter
It is not that difficult at all, just look at how they are dressed for an example. If they are wearing the checked headscarf then they are most likely hamas or fatah terrorists. If they are armed with anything that could be harmfull then they are militia.
So an IDF member patrolling the streets to keep them safe from terrorist, burglars, rapists and murderers is actively participating in hostilities, and not carrying out the demands of the Geneva conventions ?

You're funny.

The Israeli Army didn't seem to think he was a threat once he was down - otherwise they wouldn't have rendered the verdict they did.

You have a funny definition of "pre-meditated" - pre-meditated simply means that the person didn't act in the spur of the moment and the act was intentional and planned. 11 minutes passed before he decided to shoot the man in the head execution style.

 

[Lipush]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

No he was still a potential threat, more so than the Israeli children the arab muslims seem to target, so was still possibly armed and a threat.
It is only an act of murder if the act was pre meditated, as in the IDF soldier became engrossed in killing an arab muslim and thought about nothing else for days or weeks beforehand. A spur of the moment act is manslaughter
It is not that difficult at all, just look at how they are dressed for an example. If they are wearing the checked headscarf then they are most likely hamas or fatah terrorists. If they are armed with anything that could be harmfull then they are militia.
So an IDF member patrolling the streets to keep them safe from terrorist, burglars, rapists and murderers is actively participating in hostilities, and not carrying out the demands of the Geneva conventions ?

You're funny.

The Israeli Army didn't seem to think he was a threat once he was down - otherwise they wouldn't have rendered the verdict they did.

You have a funny definition of "pre-meditated" - pre-meditated simply means that the person didn't act in the spur of the moment and the act was intentional and planned. 11 minutes passed before he decided to shoot the man in the head execution style.

After the terror attack in Jerusalem they will probably have to re consider.

 

[Phoenall]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

No he was still a potential threat, more so than the Israeli children the arab muslims seem to target, so was still possibly armed and a threat.
It is only an act of murder if the act was pre meditated, as in the IDF soldier became engrossed in killing an arab muslim and thought about nothing else for days or weeks beforehand. A spur of the moment act is manslaughter
It is not that difficult at all, just look at how they are dressed for an example. If they are wearing the checked headscarf then they are most likely hamas or fatah terrorists. If they are armed with anything that could be harmfull then they are militia.
So an IDF member patrolling the streets to keep them safe from terrorist, burglars, rapists and murderers is actively participating in hostilities, and not carrying out the demands of the Geneva conventions ?

You're funny.

The Israeli Army didn't seem to think he was a threat once he was down - otherwise they wouldn't have rendered the verdict they did.

You have a funny definition of "pre-meditated" - pre-meditated simply means that the person didn't act in the spur of the moment and the act was intentional and planned. 11 minutes passed before he decided to shoot the man in the head execution style.

So not pre meditated, and as such not planned and intentional. He saw movement that was to him suspicious so he acted as his training dictated.

 

[fanger]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

 

[Challenger]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Seems fair. Now apply that to all the so called "terrorists" in Zionist prisons; lob a rock? 18 months, stab an Israeli soldier? 18 months.... no, wait, that only happens in places where there is equality under law...

 

[Lipush]

I was really sure he will get more. But 18 months is not the wanted result here. Hopefully Rivlin will pardon him.

 

[Hollie]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Seems fair. Now apply that to all the so called "terrorists" in Zionist prisons; lob a rock? 18 months, stab an Israeli soldier? 18 months.... no, wait, that only happens in places where there is equality under law...

On the other hand, it's not surprising that you, and an identifiable cabal of Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers have no issue with little islamo-bots being instructed in the ways of the Pal'istanian Death Cult.

Little girl demonstrates art of stabbing: "Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab! Stab!"

 

[Eloy]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Incredibly, his defense believe 18 months is too severe for killing a Palestinian.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Incredibly, his defense believe 18 months is too severe for killing a Palestinian.

18 months is too severe for self-defense.

 

[montelatici]

I couldn't imagine how the rabid Zionists would howl if an injured Israeli, after having attempted to kill a rock thrower, were to be executed by a Palestinian and the Palestinian was given an 18 month sentence. LOL

 

[Eloy]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Incredibly, his defense believe 18 months is too severe for killing a Palestinian.

18 months is too severe for self-defense.

We all saw the video.
He was convicted for manslaughter and the Israeli judges dismissed his lame excuse that it was self defense.
You know that.
What is the point of making a post on a false premise.

 

[Eloy]

I couldn't imagine how the rabid Zionists would howl if an injured Israeli, after having attempted to kill a rock thrower, were to be executed by a Palestinian and the Palestinian was given an 18 month sentence. LOL

Sentences are much stricter on Palestinians.
Besides, this soldier was prosecuted and convicted based on video evidence. How many Palestinians are slaughtered by the IDF and we hear nothing more because video evidence is unavailable, it must be asked.
It seems as if the IDF have the green light to carry-out summary executions.

 

[Penelope]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
Israeli soldier gets 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker - BBC News

Incredibly, his defense believe 18 months is too severe for killing a Palestinian.

18 months is too severe for self-defense.

self defense , his first bullet was self defense, the second one in his head was first degree murder.

 

[Preacher]

Sanhedrin 58b
[In other words, if a non-Jew kills a Jew, the non-Jew can be killed. Punching an Israelite is akin to assaulting God. (But killing a non-Jew is NOT like assaulting God.]
If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible.

He was just following his disgusting religion that the anti american traitors here love so much. They stupidly think the same rules don't apply to them if they are nonjews