In The Zone
January 23, 2006 12:04 PM   Subscribe

Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, should be killed. Over. Just so everyone knows how our "allies" operate.
posted by hardcoreUFO (49 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: this isn't going well...



 


Man, I don't know which side I should root for anymore...
posted by you just lost the game at 12:15 PM on January 23, 2006


SO, Loquax is for killing kids
posted by Elim at 12:17 PM on January 23, 2006


?
posted by Elim at 12:18 PM on January 23, 2006


The recording was submitted in January in the trial of the company commander, whose name has been withheld due to a military court order. He faces a maximum of three years in prison.
Under the rule of law, then? Like we do?
What exactly are you trying to say there, hardcoreUFO?
posted by boo_radley at 12:19 PM on January 23, 2006


No, that's what Hamas, Fateh, PFLP and Islamic Jihand stand for.
posted by loquax at 12:19 PM on January 23, 2006


I think the French resistance and the US in the Civil war (on both sides) did the same thing if I remember.... and the Russians in WWII. it was just as evil to shoot them back then as now...
posted by Elim at 12:20 PM on January 23, 2006


Seems like a light sentance for giving the go-ahead to Pop Caps in a toddler!
posted by Elim at 12:22 PM on January 23, 2006


No, that's what Hamas, Fateh, PFLP and Islamic Jihand stand for.

Literal translation: Bullets from allies' guns somehow don't kill children.
posted by Rothko at 12:24 PM on January 23, 2006


Great link, loquax. I couldn't have said it better myself.
posted by JeffK at 12:26 PM on January 23, 2006


Anyone who agrees with this should really take a long hard look at themselves.

I am saddened by this. But I am not surprised. There are no winners in this conflict. No side is in the right. Both are losers and both are to blame.

I can understand why Isralis would want to protect there lands and I can understand why Palistinians would want to rebel against oppression, but the killing of children is pretty much unforgivable regardless of the situation.
posted by Meccabilly at 12:27 PM on January 23, 2006


Although Fatah and Hamas et all may use kids as agents, and that's pretty low, that can't make the King Herod approach moral. You'd think orders would at least be to fire only on suspicion of possession of explosives or weaponry. Anything else should be capture, not kill.
posted by weston at 12:28 PM on January 23, 2006


Absolutely Weston.
posted by Meccabilly at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2006


Loquax:

We do not fund Hamas and co. We do heavily finance and provide state-of-the-art weaponry to the Israeli Defense Forces. It seems to me that hardcoreUFO would not argue that we finance Hamas et al., but that we stop funding the Israelis.

2. In order to prevent such behavior of groups fighting in the intifada, all Israel and its keepers have to do is allow the Palestinians to establish an army which could be funded by other countries, just as the Israeli Defense Forces are. When there is an imbalance of power, the weaker side will resort to desperate tactics. However, what excuse is there for members of the IDF to take out a 10 yr old girl? They have more than bullets at their disposal to neutralize such threats from children (such as stun guns, tranquiliser bullets, and so forth).

3. The Wikipedia link you posted gives no specific examples of child suicide bombers. Please provide some, for I don't recall any children age 10 being sent to carry out bombings.
posted by Azaadistani at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2006


Just so everyone knows how our "allies'" enemies operate.
posted by loquax at 12:14 PM PST on January 23


"Sir! It turns out that the enemy is doing immoral, reprehensible things, sir! What are your orders, sir?"

"Take a box of baby kittens, eviscerate them, then force a second grader to bathe in the remains as his mother watches. Then rape her in front of everyone while singing "Whoomp! There It Is." As you climax, burn everyone alive and castrate the child."

"Sir! I don't know how that will stop the enemy, sir!"

"Neither do I, Private, but we can't let the terrorists win."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2006


No one is saying they agree with this, Meccabilly. But if I see a 10 year old girl wearing a bomb running toward a populated area, I'm going to shoot her. I'll have very hard time living with it, but I'll do it nonetheless. It's a matter of survival. Normal rules of morality don't apply.
posted by JeffK at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2006


Both sides willfully engage in actions that result in the preventable deaths of innocent children.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2006


Nauseating, disgusting. I can understand soldier fears, but killing anybody expecially a kid who is posing no threat must not be excused. What the fuck did they have in mind ?What the hell was happening ?

CC : Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, should be killed. Over.

Defence line is so weak they should shoot on sight ? What do they fear ? They're either overzealous batshit insane or they defence is so weak they NEED to shoot anybody on sight to prevent an ambush..I can't find any other plausible reason for shooting that way.
posted by elpapacito at 12:32 PM on January 23, 2006


Damn it, I guess I missed the rapture. Welcome to the apocalypse.
posted by odinsdream at 12:33 PM on January 23, 2006


(This thread is about to get ugly.)
posted by JeffK at 12:34 PM on January 23, 2006


But if I see a 10 year old girl wearing a bomb running toward a populated area, I'm going to shoot her. I'll have very hard time living with it, but I'll do it nonetheless. It's a matter of survival. Normal rules of morality don't apply.
posted by JeffK at 12:30 PM PST on January 23


Too bad she didn't have a bomb, I guess.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on January 23, 2006


Literal translation: Bullets from allies' guns somehow don't kill children.

There is a world of difference between clearly designating an area as a "forbidden zone" and then considering anyone inside it an enemy, regardless of age or sex, and sending children out with pipe bombs and suicide vests with the intention that they die and take as many innocents as possible with them.

It's tragic that the Israelis have been put in the position that they are forced to consider even children as potential suicide bombers, but they have been put in that position by the tactics of those that attack Israel.

That being said, I don't know the particulars of this case beyond the transcript provided. It's entirely possible that the soldiers in question acted inappropriately and/or criminally. It is tragic that this child died no matter what the circumstances, and any action that can be taken to minimize civilian and non-combatant death should be mandatory.

3. The Wikipedia link you posted gives no specific examples of child suicide bombers. Please provide some, for I don't recall any children age 10 being sent to carry out bombings.


There are specific examples towards the bottom of the article, as well as external links to reports on the use of children as combatants.
posted by loquax at 12:36 PM on January 23, 2006


Is it wrong to shoot a soldier if he is about to shoot your daughter?

What if he mistakenly thinks that she has a bomb?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:36 PM on January 23, 2006


Strong property rights and universal hot-blooded death penalty, please.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 12:36 PM on January 23, 2006


Was I really the only one who notice that the man who gave this order is under court martial? Which would seem to say that the order was not acceptable to the Israeli state.
posted by boo_radley at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2006


Although it is not right to use children as couriers etc., it is not right to shoot children either. Its one of the ways western ethics, when properly followed, ties one hand behind the backs of soldiers.

But it is such a small price to pay for being human beings that it can be no other way. It is good that this particular company commander is being tried for a crime.

Normal rules of morality always apply. That's why they are the rules of morality. Sometimes they dictate that we do things that are not in our individual best interests. That's why its morality and not pure self-preservation.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2006


This came from a TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

The person who did this got in trouble.

So this isn't reflective of official Israeli policy.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:38 PM on January 23, 2006


It's a matter of survival. Normal rules of morality don't apply.

Yup, that's what Bush et. al. said about the Geneva Convention and the Constitution.

Both just goddamned pieces of paper. Not trying to derail, but I can understand how the actions of the Israeli army don't faze the US administration.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 12:38 PM on January 23, 2006


Attention loquax and other people living in endless fear of terrorists: go live in a nerf-padded cave and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:39 PM on January 23, 2006


Thank you, ibmcginty.
posted by boo_radley at 12:39 PM on January 23, 2006


It's a matter of survival. Normal rules of morality don't apply.

This is what a bank robber tells himself as he shoots the cashier. Later, he tells himself this so he can get to sleep.

Beforehand, he told himself that to supress his reservations about the whole job.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:40 PM on January 23, 2006


Both sides willfully engage in actions that result in the preventable deaths of innocent children.

Yes, but the palestinians are poorer, so we should root for the palestinians.

(Anyone who takes sides in this one is stupid. This is the global equivalent of two absolutely unlikeable kids on the playground trying to beat each other up over a brown bag that used to contain a lunch. You don't wish for one to "win," you just hope that they'll frigging STOP. Even though they won't.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:41 PM on January 23, 2006


So this isn't reflective of official Israeli policy.

Note who thinks it would be a good policy, even if it is not the policy right now.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:41 PM on January 23, 2006


Looked at those links and the Human Rights Watch says 2 17 year old boys were used as bombers. There appears to be no 10 year old bombers.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:43 PM on January 23, 2006


Who thinks it would be a good policy, sonofsamiam? Tell us; don't be coy about it.
posted by boo_radley at 12:44 PM on January 23, 2006


Fixed:

Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, should be killed. Over. Just so everyone knows that when our "allies" operate improperly they are put on trial and prosecuted.
posted by hardcoreUFO at 12:04 PM PST

There. Less trolling, more filling!
posted by cavalier at 12:44 PM on January 23, 2006


Actually, if memory serves, they said that the Geneva Convention didn't apply, pursuant to its own terms that set forth when it should apply. Same with the Constitution. Not that I agree with them, but it wasn't just a "it's a matter of survival" argument.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:45 PM on January 23, 2006


mayor curley is right. i don't have a 'favorite' in israel vs. palestine because i'm fucking sick of both of them. crazy sons of bitches, the lot of 'em.

i just wish we'd stop throwing money and weapons israel's way.
posted by wakko at 12:48 PM on January 23, 2006


Was I really the only one who notice that the man who gave this order is under court martial? Which would seem to say that the order was not acceptable to the Israeli state. - boo_radley

You were not the only one. This is important to the story and contradicts the framing of the original link. Or, as ibmcginty put it: This came from a TRIAL TRANSCRIPT. The person who did this got in trouble. So this isn't reflective of official Israeli policy.

There are no winners in this conflict. No side is in the right. Both are losers and both are to blame. - Meccabilly

Absolutely. Many people realize this, even in Israel & Palestine. But it's exceedingly difficult to break abusive cycles.
posted by raedyn at 12:48 PM on January 23, 2006


Attention loquax and other people living in endless fear of terrorists: go live in a nerf-padded cave and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Tell that to the 1,001 dead and 6,700 wounded Israelis. How silly Israelis are to fear terrorism.

Looked at those links and the Human Rights Watch says 2 17 year old boys were used as bombers. There appears to be no 10 year old bombers.

The link I posted cited an number of examples of children involved in carrying out or plotting attacks between the age of 12-17, and more in the external links. Here is an Israeli MFA report on the subject.
posted by loquax at 12:48 PM on January 23, 2006


I'm just trying to put the Israeli view into perspective. There are a lot of people in Israel who believe that their very survival is on the line here. They believe that if they do not act out violently against those who would destroy them, that they will literally be driven into the sea. It's very easy for us to sit here in the US and pass judgement from our moral high ground. Meanwhile there are very few of us who know what it really feels like to have our existence truly threatened. 9/11 doesn't compare. Do you think anyone in Tennessee, or California, or Kansas, or Arizona, feels truly threatened by terrorism? Threatened to point where you don't know where or when the bomb will go off? We have no idea, is all I'm saying.
posted by JeffK at 12:50 PM on January 23, 2006


A quick Google search turns up a lot more about this case, including several reports from the Guardian.
posted by neurodoc at 12:52 PM on January 23, 2006


Do you think anyone in Tennessee, or California, or Kansas, or Arizona, feels truly threatened by terrorism?

Yes, otherwise Bush would not have been elected. Red staters are cowardly, in that respect, at least.
posted by Rothko at 12:54 PM on January 23, 2006


Yes, I thought it interesting to see people defend clearly criminal actions as being justifiable. Guess it pays to read the whole article and see the "court martial" part before exposing your moral vacancy via foot in mouth synrome.
posted by stenseng at 12:54 PM on January 23, 2006


Mekled Hameid's daughter.

posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2006


Do you think anyone in Tennessee, or California, or Kansas, or Arizona, feels truly threatened by terrorism?

I so wish this was a rhetorical question.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:01 PM on January 23, 2006


poor girl.

.
posted by moonbird at 1:04 PM on January 23, 2006


It looks like the military acquitted the commander last November. I guess the current case is a civil one?
posted by neurodoc at 1:04 PM on January 23, 2006


The person who did this got in trouble. So this isn't reflective of official Israeli policy.

Do we know the details of this case? What are the charges? What is Israeli policy on the subject? Without more context, it's very difficult to cast judgment in this case, beyond a knee-jerk condemnation of the Israelis involved. Which I fully admit is tempting, because it is terrible to see any innocent killed. It's just not that simple when your enemies have ensured that everyone and anyone can be a potential threat, and in most cases, you'll never know until it's too late.

On preview, thanks neurodoc - it seems clear that in this case, barring any contradictory evidence, that this was improper based on the facts of this case, not on a general principle that all children are by default to be treated as non-combatants.
posted by loquax at 1:04 PM on January 23, 2006


« Older "...an afternoon after which nothing was ever the...   |   Textual Criticism and the Reliability of Scripture Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments