Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nonsense. You evince a subjective, biased, pre-conceived opinion and faux connection between the two, as an aid to a pro-Palestinian propaganda campaign and political agenda.Only Zionists defend the killing of children.
It certainly speaks loudly about Zionism.
IMHO, the question of the criminal or non-criminal status attributable to the death of a child, killed by combatants in a war or war-like combat operations or civil-unrest scenario, is an important and pressing matter and entirely worthwhile of close and honest attention by people of goodwill everywhere.
There are a wide range of circumstances in which accident or mistake or visibility or panic or safety pressures or collateral and unintended harm or individual misinterpretation of standing orders and policy and protocols can lead to such death(s), as well as the equally wide range of more malevolent explanations.
It is entirely understandable that the Advocates for Side A or B will wish to ensure that all reasonably-possible 'innocent' explanations have been explored, before conceding the possibility of more malevolent intent, and that they will defend such exploration. It's called Ensuring Benefit-of-a-Doubt; integral to the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
It's called holding the Kangaroo Court at-bay; keeping it at arms'-length in the public eye; derailing attempts by fifth-columnists to foster a lynch-mob mentality to their advantage.
Keeping the Kangaroo Court and Lynch Mob at-bay is a Righteous Thing to do.
Insisting that that such 'innocent explanations' are explored with equal vigor is an entirely understandable and acceptable mode of behavior, in advocating for one's Side in a conflict, so long as one is willing to face unpleasant truths, in the event that something more malevolent can be reasonably construed or proven as more solid evidence surfaces.
An entirely understandable and acceptable mode of behavior which we see all around the planet, frequently, whenever there is a conflict or civil unrest, and Side B accuses Side A.
Nothing to do with or unique to Zionism, or Judaism, or Jews, or Israelis, or whatever.
Even if a thousand pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim, pro-Arab propaganda shills come scurrying out of the woodwork to protest otherwise, in their juvenile gainsay fashion.
I suggest that you refrain from commenting upon matters that are beyond your comprehension.That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
I suggest you STFU.
Non sequitur and off-topic; in the main, or in connection with legitimate sidebars.I suggest that you refrain from commenting upon matters that are beyond your comprehension.That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
I suggest you STFU.
What 'shit' is that, Tinny?Links to what, Tinny? My humble opinion? If you've read the post, you already have that link. I'm curious, Tinny. Do you always 'play it safe' and hide behind the outputs of the minds of others (until you're caught using crap that won't stand the sniff-test, anyway)? Do you ever dare to utilize your own mind and intellect and logic and your own words to argue a position as a matter of opinion, ready to defend what you've said based upon commonly acceptable principles of logic and law? In depth... and conversationally... not your ceaseless one-liners and ever-popular 'Links?' and endless cut-and-paste spam? If you see substantive flaw(s) in my contention that all reasonably-possible explanations should be explored in such scenarios, before we move to indict and condemn automatically, and that such desire for exploration is a global desire and tendency rather than a Zionist one - utilizing your own words, and intellect, and applied logic, then.. have at it. Go for it. Assuming that that capacity even exists within you. Good luck, counterpointing the validity of such exploration and global attribution.
You have to get that shit someplace.
The idea that Advocates for a given Side will always want to ensure that all reasonably non-malevolent explanations for an incident have been explored, before they will concede more malevolent intentions?
The idea that insistence upon such explorations is a global tendency rather than a Zionist one?
Those two contentions are 'shit'?
Really?
Please enlighten us, in a non-partisan fashion, as to the flaws in such observations.
Personally, I utilized applied logic and a modest layman's understanding of the rights of the accused, to reach such sensible conclusions.
Feel free to tell the audience why those two contentions are 'shit'.
Using your own words and your own intellect, not somebody else's.
If you dare.
If you even can.
Else have your own intellectual bargain-basement Automatic Gainsay ('shit' remark) here be recognized for what IT probably is... shit.
There are a wide range of circumstances in which accident or mistake or visibility or panic or safety pressures or collateral and unintended harm or individual misinterpretation of standing orders and policy and protocols can lead to such death(s), as well as the equally wide range of more malevolent explanations.
Every case is unique and different."...OK, let me take an important quote out of your post.
There are a wide range of circumstances in which accident or mistake or visibility or panic or safety pressures or collateral and unintended harm or individual misinterpretation of standing orders and policy and protocols can lead to such death(s), as well as the equally wide range of more malevolent explanations.
I look at patterns of behavior or MO. For example:
In 2000 Israel killed 91 Palestinian children. (BTW, no Israeli children were killed during that time.) Of those 91 children killed, 48 were shot in the head.
Would you call that a pattern of behavior or just some mistakes or accidents?"
Every case is unique and different."...OK, let me take an important quote out of your post.
There are a wide range of circumstances in which accident or mistake or visibility or panic or safety pressures or collateral and unintended harm or individual misinterpretation of standing orders and policy and protocols can lead to such death(s), as well as the equally wide range of more malevolent explanations.
I look at patterns of behavior or MO. For example:
In 2000 Israel killed 91 Palestinian children. (BTW, no Israeli children were killed during that time.) Of those 91 children killed, 48 were shot in the head.
Would you call that a pattern of behavior or just some mistakes or accidents?"
The case in question here may be typical or atypical.
But its characteristics and principles and circumstances are unique to itself.
And, of course, such characteristics do nothing to counterpoint the two points listed earlier ([1] it's understandable to explore all explanations before condemning, and [2] that's a global attribute, not Zionist]).
And, with respect to patterns of behavior, and child head-shot deaths, and allowing myself to be diverted momentarily onto another somewhat-relevant sidebar or contributing assertion...
We have been down this road before, in recent days...
In which you and others claimed Malevolent Intent or Policy, directed against children...
And in which I asked for statistics on ALL child injuries at that location during that timeframe...
Saying, in effect...
If 1000 child gunshot casualties were incurred...
Then 91 head-shots represent 9.1% of all gunshot casualties, and 48 child head-shot deaths represent 4.8% of all child gunshot casualties, and those numbers are statistically insignificant...
If 100 child gunshot casualties were incurred...
Then 91 head-shots represent 91% of all gunshot casualties, and 48 child head-shot deaths represent 48% of all child gunshot casualties, and those numbers ARE statistically significant...
Not to mention that 52.7% of head-shot wounds were fatal (48/91=.0527); no surprise there; frankly, I'm surprised (and delighted) to hear that the survival rate is so high, for such grievous wounds to those poor kids.
Because we have not yet been able to establish Statistical Significance (as a percentage of all child-gunshot casualties), we do not yet know whether one may objectively and logically infer a Trend or Pattern, or written or unspoken policy or range of practices.
Such speculation is not only inconclusive, Tinny, but it's damned thin.
That doesn't mean that you're not 'on to something' - that there might not be some substance behind it - but it does mean that such speculation is a long, long way from becoming established fact, or even reliably inferred likelihood, quite honestly.
The basis you give here does not yet meet the Sniff Test, upon a closer examination.
I'm a million miles away from being objective in such matters myself, but I'm really and truly not trying to be overly-obstructive or obtuse here.
That's simply the way it adds-up, at present, with respect to Statistical Significance and all that implies. Hope that helps.
You DO understand the need to establish Statistical Significance, before you can legitimately and credibly claim a Pattern or Trend on which to base logical speculation about Policy and Practices, in connection with Israeli targeting of children, right? Your answer does nothing to address that need."WOW, are you related to Rube Goldgerg?"...That's simply the way it adds-up, at present, with respect to Statistical Significance and all that implies. Hope that helps.
What has this to do with the Palestinian boy, referenced in the OP, or with your lack of ability to counterpoint the sidebar pertaining to the ideas that (1) all likely explanations should be explored prior to condemnation and (2) insistence upon such explorations are a global rather than a Zionist attribute?More about the murder of a 17 year old Palestinian girl...
Not Statistical EVIDENCE.Statistical evidence has nothing at all to do with these murders of children.
It's what happens when the Losing Side (and the Palestinians have long-since lost) have nothing left but old legal arguments and emotionalism, when they stop thinking in clear and precise and practical terms, and when they become Dogmatists.There's no point in seeking to have a 'discussion' with the induhviduals who insist that each and every report of IDF misconduct is absolutely totally factual, and further insist that every single Palestinian killed or injured who MAY possibly have ben harmed by IDF action, was 'deliberately targeted' and 'murdered'.
That contention is statistically unsupportable - nonetheless, they repeat it ad infinitum and insist that whatever 'source' they are using to condemn Israel is unimpeachable and also totally objective......
It's merely a shared fantasy and delusion of the Jew-haters. Another way to cloak their Jew-hatred as 'morality'....
Israel is NOT perfect, nor are the IDF angels. But neither are Zionists demonic as the whores of HAMAS keep screeching - nor are the IDF happy to bring harm to Palestinians who aren't armed and gunning for Israelis or anyone else.
While these inDUHviduals refuse to deal with reality, I can't see any reason to deal with them.
Until you have case-by-case context and relevant circumstances, such pronouncements are truly pointless.The 1520 children Israel has killed in Palestine are not statistics, they are each one a murdered Palestinian child who deserves to have their killers brought to justice for the crimes that resulted in the deaths of each one of these children.
We have informmation about each killing, documented by countless sources.
It is all there waiting for a Prosecutor from the ICC or another Tribunal to pick it up and get justice for all of these murdered children in Palestine.
There is no statute of limitations.
Justice takes awhile sometimes, but it is coming.
