[Beso]

Originally Posted by y.winter

Oh, you already gave up. never mind.

Gave up on what?

I still think it should have been murder and not manslaughter...terrorist, civillian..donald fu king duck..in my opinion he should have been done for murder...not sure how or why you claim victory just cause you think pigs have wings ffs.

Very confusing..

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Exactly and so all of those Israelis fighting for more land are terrorists to the Palestinians and all those Palestinians fighting back (without the privilege of an army) are terrorists to Israel.

It takes at least two sides to fight a war.

[Josy]

Stick to the topic in here, that means stop discussing each other

[y.winter]

OK, as you wish.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...051749543.html

In delivering her verdict, Colonel Maya Heller systematically rejected all of Azaria's defence arguments, saying "the fact that the man on the ground was a terrorist does not justify a disproportionate response".

Even the guys at Aljazeera don't mind quoting it from the verdict.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by y.winter

OK, as you wish.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...051749543.html

Even the guys at Aljazeera don't mind quoting it from the verdict.

Cheers i will call him a terrorist from now on.

Should still have been a murder conviction though...funny though cause i have been sitring with al jazeera on for about 3 hours now and they have always said shooting dead a palastinian man each and every time its been reported..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by y.winter

OK, as you wish.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...051749543.html

Even the guys at Aljazeera don't mind quoting it from the verdict.

"Israel's political leadership has also swayed with the majority," Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons, reporting from Tel Aviv, said.

"Avigdor Lieberman actively campaigned in support of Azaria and he has since been appointed defence minister by Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister."

Naftali Bennett, the education minister and a member of Israel's far-right Jewish Home party, said before the verdict that the soldier should be pardoned if found guilty.

"That is whipping up a lot of reactions," Simmons said. "There is a split in the Israeli public opinion on how army should act in [attack] situations. In the majority are those who feel that 'terrorists' who attack Israeli soldiers are fair targets."

In a memorandum sent to the Israeli authorities in September 2016, human rights group Amnesty International highlighted at least 20 cases of apparently unlawful killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. In at least 15 of these cases those killed were deliberately shot dead, despite posing no imminent threat to life.

Since October 2015, Israeli soldiers and settlers have been responsible for the killing of at least 244 Palestinians, including unarmed demonstrators, bystanders and alleged attackers in an upsurge in violence.

'Terrorists' are people who don't belong to a terrorist organisation terrorists? If they are by the same token should the guy who attacked Jo Cox not be called terrorist, if it's for a political cause against establishment figures?

[Brother Leon]

Out of interest, if Hezbollah captured an Israeli soldier and then killed him when he was apprehended, would it be understandable? You know, seeing as they would have deemed him a terrorist and all.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brother Leon

Out of interest, if Hezbollah captured an Israeli soldier and then killed him when he was apprehended, would it be understandable? You know, seeing as they would have seemed him a terrorist and all.

eh?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

"Israel's political leadership has also swayed with the majority," Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons, reporting from Tel Aviv, said.

"Avigdor Lieberman actively campaigned in support of Azaria and he has since been appointed defence minister by Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister."

Naftali Bennett, the education minister and a member of Israel's far-right Jewish Home party, said before the verdict that the soldier should be pardoned if found guilty.

"That is whipping up a lot of reactions," Simmons said. "There is a split in the Israeli public opinion on how army should act in [attack] situations. In the majority are those who feel that 'terrorists' who attack Israeli soldiers are fair targets."

In a memorandum sent to the Israeli authorities in September 2016, human rights group Amnesty International highlighted at least 20 cases of apparently unlawful killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. In at least 15 of these cases those killed were deliberately shot dead, despite posing no imminent threat to life.

Since October 2015, Israeli soldiers and settlers have been responsible for the killing of at least 244 Palestinians, including unarmed demonstrators, bystanders and alleged attackers in an upsurge in violence.

'Terrorists' are people who don't belong to a terrorist organisation terrorists? If they are by the same token should the guy who attacked Jo Cox not be called terrorist, if it's for a political cause against establishment figures?

what are you linking too?

[DemolitionRed]

The link in the quote above what was said.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

what are you linking too?

The article in the quote in my post.

[Beso]

In a memorandum sent to the Israeli authorities in September 2016, human rights group Amnesty International highlighted at least 20 cases of apparently unlawful killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. In at least 15 of these cases those killed were deliberately shot dead, despite posing no imminent threat to life.



Shocking statistic.

[Kizzy]

Don't worry its not restricted to overseas.

Britain remains under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is conducting a preliminary examination of allegations of war crimes by British forces in Iraq.

The ICC is looking at more than 1,200 cases of alleged ill-treatment and unlawful killing – including almost 50 Iraqis who reportedly died in British custody.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6793271.html

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I have been in several war zones, although I was fully protected by armed guards. And I'm a military widow and that gives me some insight into it. I've worked in Israel, I've been to Palestine several times, I'vbe been to Iraq and Syria and the refugee camps in Jordan.

No one's saying people don'y have the right to say whatever they want. But I also have the right to say what I said, from a stronger, more informed position.

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

and you think jailing a 19 year old boy for 20 years solves the problem how?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you think jailing a 19 year old boy for 20 years solves the problem how?

He killed someone unlawfully, he committed a crime. There's not much else to say on the matter, also not sure how you can solve a problem of a dead prisoner unless you have the cure for death. Good luck with that?

His age has no bearing on anything, he had the same training as everyone else yet they aren't killing prisoners. He did not make a mistake during an engagement, he CHOSE to kill a captured enemy when they posed no threat to him. Like I said before, this was not a mistake, it was a decision.

Mentioning his age is just another desperate attempt to take focus of the facts of the case. It's pretty open and shut in all honesty.

[Crimson Dynamo]

hopefully Israel will pardon this brave soldier and focus on killing vile terrorists like the one who was rightfully terminated before he could kill again

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

hopefully Israel will pardon this brave soldier and focus on killing vile terrorists like the one who was rightfully terminated before he could kill again

This dead man was a terrorist to the Israelis but keep in mind, the Palestinians have no armies, just freedom fighters. They don't have cluster bombs, just knives and they don't have full support from the West like the Israelis do.

My father in law is a Jew and he feels nothing but shame for whats gone on. Fortunately there are still many Jews who don't rally to the cries of Israel and he's one of them.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

This dead man was a terrorist to the Israelis but keep in mind, the Palestinians have no armies, just freedom fighters. They don't have cluster bombs, just knives and they don't have full support from the West like the Israelis do.

My father in law is a Jew and he feels nothing but shame for whats gone on. Fortunately there are still many Jews who don't rally to the cries of Israel and he's one of them.

He was a terrorist. Trying to use dress-up language such as 'freedom'fighters' doesn't change that.

[Tom4784]

Fixating on the murdered party's identity means that you're missing the entire point of the case.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

He was a terrorist. Trying to use dress-up language such as 'freedom'fighters' doesn't change that.

Brillo, what do you think about the Arabs cause in Palestine? Keep in mind that a lot of those Arabs/Palastinians are Christians.

Bethlehem was the birth place of Christianity but Christians, just like Muslims, have been massively persecuted by the Israelis.