Another dead Kid.

[P F Tinmore]

I have already pointed out a Palestinian representative is asking this case of the Israeli murder of the child addressed in the OP be taken before the ICC.

The Zionist war criminals responsible for the murder of this Palestinian child need to be prosecuted .

Thats fine dear. But, as noted elsewhere, lets also get members of the various islamist terrorist syndicates operating in Gaza before the ICC for cross examination regarding their culpability in murderous attacks aimed at Israelis.

"Shirley", you're not so biased and dogmatic to think that your islamist terrorist heroes should be excerpt from testimony that might provide the court with a wider array of evidence.

You dont have any problem with your Islamic terrorist heroes being subject to depositions and a full process of discovery, right?

The Goldstone Report alleged violations of international law by Hamas.

Israel blew its chance to take them to court by rejecting the report.

 

[Hollie]

Is it ever legal for foreign troops to kill children?

Depends upon whether they were killed intentionally or by accident or mistakenly, as collateral casualties, I'm guessing.

Does that sound correct to you, at-law?

I'm sure that the Americans and French and British and Russians killed a number of German kids by accident or by mistake in the closing months of WWII or in the first confusing weeks and months of the Occupation of Germany.

Not surprised to see you still defending Zionist child murders.

Some people never change, may God have mercy on their souls.

Not surprised to see you're reduced to lies and deceit to cover your acceptance of Islamic terrorists using children as bomb delivery devices.

May Allah be pleased with you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Depends upon whether they were killed intentionally or by accident or mistakenly, as collateral casualties, I'm guessing.

Does that sound correct to you, at-law?

I'm sure that the Americans and French and British and Russians killed a number of German kids by accident or by mistake in the closing months of WWII or in the first confusing weeks and months of the Occupation of Germany.

Not surprised to see you still defending Zionist child murders.

Some people never change, may God have mercy on their souls.

Not surprised to see you're reduced to lies and deceit to cover your acceptance of Islamic terrorists using children as bomb delivery devices.

May Allah be pleased with you.

The Palestinians stopped suicide bombing years ago.

You need to update your propaganda.

 

[Hollie]

Well, let us review it, a question was asked , in another thread today, whether killings of children were justified.

Only a Zionist poster using the name Hollie answers yes.

IMy point is proven true.

Post 143 on this thread, actually, quoted below

"Of course. While not an army, the falsely labeled "Palestinian" Arabs used their own children as delivery vehicles for bombs intended to slaughter Israeli children.During the Iran vs. Iraq war, (a somewhat different use for disposable children), kidswere used to mark landmine locations - by walking into the mine fields.Arabs have some strange ideas about uses and abuses of children."

Children gassed to death by Zionists are being falsely labelled as suicide bombers.

Has this poster no shame?

Children used by Sherri's islamist terrorist heroes as bomb delivery devices -


Has Sherri no shame? Is she paid by Hamas to dump such melodrama in her posts?

 

[Hollie]

Not surprised to see you still defending Zionist child murders.

Some people never change, may God have mercy on their souls.

Not surprised to see you're reduced to lies and deceit to cover your acceptance of Islamic terrorists using children as bomb delivery devices.

May Allah be pleased with you.

The Palestinians stopped suicide bombing years ago.

You need to update your propaganda.

Did they run out of youngsters?

 

[Kondor3]

Only Zionists defend the killing of children.

It certainly speaks loudly about Zionism.

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.

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only Zionists defend the killing of children.

It certainly speaks loudly about Zionism.

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.

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.

Links?

 

[Kondor3]

Only Zionists defend the killing of children. It certainly speaks loudly about Zionism.

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. 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.

Links?

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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. 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.

Links?

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.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

No suicide bombings are happening in Palestine.

But children are still being gassed by Israelis.

Zionists need to stop lying.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Links?

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.

That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

No suicide bombings are happening in Palestine.

But children are still being gassed by Israelis.

Zionists need to stop lying.

pppffftinmore thanked your post.

I don't know about suicide bombings in Palestine as I would imagine that suicide bombings in Palestinian Authority controlled areas do not happen.

Random killings and attempted killings are happening in Israel.

Where is your proof that children are still being gassed by Israelis?

 

[Hollie]

No suicide bombings are happening in Palestine.

But children are still being gassed by Israelis.

Zionists need to stop lying.

No suicide bombings currently.

How terrible that must be for you.

 

[Hollie]

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.

That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

Actually, it was you, the islamist poster who had nothing to say.

 

[Kondor3]

Links?

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.

What 'shit' is that, Tinny?

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.

 

[dreolin]

True, the way they treat their own children is disgusting.

You really do not want to go there.

It has been discussed many times on this forum how they treat their own children, so we have all been there. Do some thread and post searches if you want to go there.

You opened that door, I didn't.

I don't want to go there.

I don't want to play tit for tat as to how Israeli parents treat their children compared with how Palestinian parents treat their children. It will only lead to a counterproductive downward spiral to no positive end.

Parents, most parents, love their children, regardlesss of ethnicity.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Where is your proof that children are still being gassed by Israelis?"


That is being discussed at the thread below.

Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum

Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum

QALQILIYA*(Ma'an) -- "A 1-month-old child from the northern West Bank village of Kafr Qaddum was seriously hurt after Israeli forces fired tear gas at his family's home on Saturday night."A spokesperson for the village's popular resistance committee Murad Ishteiwi told Ma'an that four Israeli military jeeps and a bulldozer stormed the village east of Qalqiliya overnight. The Israeli forces fired tear gas haphazardly at houses during the raid, he said."The article reports that as a result of the excessive use of tear gas, a month-old child named Khalid Majid Jumaa began to choke and vomit from the tear gas.Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum | Maan News Agency


http://www.usmessageboard.com/middl...jured-during-israeli-raid-in-kafr-qaddum.html

 

[Kondor3]

Links to U]what[/U], 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.

That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

I suggest that you refrain from commenting upon matters that are beyond your comprehension.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

"Where is your proof that children are still being gassed by Israelis?"


That is being discussed at the thread below.

Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum

Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum

QALQILIYA*(Ma'an) -- "A 1-month-old child from the northern West Bank village of Kafr Qaddum was seriously hurt after Israeli forces fired tear gas at his family's home on Saturday night."A spokesperson for the village's popular resistance committee Murad Ishteiwi told Ma'an that four Israeli military jeeps and a bulldozer stormed the village east of Qalqiliya overnight. The Israeli forces fired tear gas haphazardly at houses during the raid, he said."The article reports that as a result of the excessive use of tear gas, a month-old child named Khalid Majid Jumaa began to choke and vomit from the tear gas.Month-old child injured during Israeli raid in Kafr Qaddum | Maan News Agency


http://www.usmessageboard.com/middl...jured-during-israeli-raid-in-kafr-qaddum.html

And you started a thread on this with a wink smilie for all on the forum to see. In other words you are happy the child suffered so you really are happy when arab babies and children are injured or killed. Sick, sick sick.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You have to get that shit someplace.

That Zionist poster certainly knows how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

I suggest that you refrain from commenting upon matters that are beyond your comprehension.

I suggest you STFU.