Israelis tie boy to hood of jeep!...m

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Israelis tie boy to hood of jeep!...m
8
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 9:48pm
Incidents like these never cease to amaze me.

According witnesses, the Israeli army, faced with stone-throwing protesters, grabbed a 13 year old Palestinian kid and tied him by the arm to their jeep in order to stop the stone-throwers from aiming at the jeep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm

"Mohammed later told the Reuters news agency: "I was scared when they got me at first, I thought they would put me in prison. I was scared a stone would hit me."

"Mohammed's father, Saeed, said: "When I saw him on the hood of the jeep, my whole mind went crazy - he was shivering from fear."

I can't imagine what a parent thinks when they see their junior-high aged child tied to the hood of a jeep as a human shield in the midst of a dangerous confrontation. It's like some sort of horrible Mad-Max inspired nightmare.

A rabbi attempted to help the boy:

"It is very sad to see that we have come to this position. There is disbelief," Rabbi Ascherman said."

I am afraid that the Israelis will next start tying Palestinian kindergartners spread-eagled on their tanks to ensure safe passage.

Any pro-Zionists want to come up with a justification for using non-combatant CHILDREN as human shields for armored vehicles?

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 9:55pm
<>

There is no excuse for such barbaric behavior from BOTH sides. Just as this incident is deplorable, so is sending teenage homicide bombers through Jewish marketplaces to destroy innocent civilians. Your evident hatred for Jews/Israelis is duly noted. However, this post reeks of the pot calling the kettle black. There is enough blame to go around.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 2:58am
<>

Has the Palestinian army tied any 13 year old boys to the front of their jeeps? Oh. Wait. I remember. The Palestinians don't HAVE an army (or a state, or land rights, or human rights, or, well, anything...).

<>

Like most pro-Zionists, your only defense for Israel is to compare them to terrorists.

<>

Translation: "Since I am unable to defend Israel's actions, I'll make a baseless ad hominum attack against you."

<>

I am neither the pot nor the kettle. I am a tiny part of the big wallet that pays Israel $4 billion every year. Which leads us to the question of you. Do you have a particular metaphor for your position in this mess?

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 11:00am
<>

I call a spade, a spade. Those homicide bombers target a large portion of innocent civilian lives, just as the terrorists did on 9/11. Therefore, they ARE terrorists.

YOUR <>

You know what they say about making assumptions. Yet, how curious...your post has a sense of hatred about it against Jews which I observed and you accuse me of ad hominem attacks! If you had targeted any other group of people and I judge it to be unfair, I would have commented on it also. I am familiar with your posts, though and have come to expect such reaction from you towards those whose world view of the Palestinian conflict does not conform to yours.

My position on *this mess* is that since the PA is determined to wipe out Israel regardless, then Israel has the right to defend herself in any way, shape, or form.

This position would remain the same, say, for the Philippines in their dealings with Abu Sayef, a terrorist group intent on visiting terror on innocent civilians.

Of course, I know that you won't agree with me and may even accuse me of more ad hominem attacks. But that is your prerogative as this is a free country and this is, after all a debate board where anyone can sound off on any topic one so chooses.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 6:18pm
<>

Ah. You are the kind of person who "senses" how everyone else feels. An empath...

Take off your Deanna Troi costume and debate, already.

<>

How does tying a thirteen year old boy onto the hood of an army jeep during a dangerous confrontation fit into your world view? Apparently, you are not entirely opposed to such an action, since you are defending the army that did so.

<>

I guess that answers my question about the boy tied to the jeep.

<>

You would suggest the Philippine army use civilian children as human shields when dealing with terrorists?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 9:53am
>>My position on *this mess* is that since the PA is determined to wipe out Israel regardless, then Israel has the right to defend herself in any way, shape, or form.

This position would remain the same, say, for the Philippines in their dealings with Abu Sayef, a terrorist group intent on visiting terror on innocent civilians. <<

Hmmmm. So we villify the Palestinians for using their own children as suicide bombers, but it's acceptable for the Israelis to use enemy children as shields (and in fact, should be encouraged, since this is self-defense).

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 1:05pm

I don't think immenie meant that.

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-30-2004 - 1:31pm
<

Take off your Deanna Troi costume and debate, already.>>

Yep, I can see YOU are open to debate! As I said, I am familiar with your posts. And I know that no matter what those of other opinions state in their posts, you do nothing but ridicule and *attack*. That's not debate and I'm just not up to playing your kind of games. :)

As an aside, you mock what an empathetic person *senses*.

empathetic: showing empathy or ready comprehension of others' states (ie. "a sensitive and empathetic school counselor")

Isn't this what you want others to be when you want others to *see* your POV?

Have a great life and *try* not to be so angry. :)

Oh...And be my guest: you may have the last word. :D

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-30-2004 - 1:49pm
Here is my original response to the thread:

<>

you quoted me: >>My position on *this mess* is that since the PA is determined to wipe out Israel regardless, then Israel has the right to defend herself in any way, shape, or form.

This position would remain the same, say, for the Philippines in their dealings with Abu Sayef, a terrorist group intent on visiting terror on innocent civilians. <<

your response: Hmmmm. So we villify the Palestinians for using their own children as suicide bombers, but it's acceptable for the Israelis to use enemy children as shields (and in fact, should be encouraged, since this is self-defense).

I've already decried what the Israelis did to the boy. Let me clarify: If the Palestinians/Abu Sayef are determined to wipe out Israel/the Philippines regardless, then Israel/the Philippines have the right to defend herself in any way, shape, or form. Just leave the children out.

Are you *really* interested in my opinion, anyway? I know crictor is not. I've shared POV's w/ you in the past and even found common ground. It seems that if there is even a *whiff* of some kind of support for Israel, one is branded a Zionist.