[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Styxx
Well, if you consider only the fact that he shot her after she was down, yeah, I'd consider that reprehensible, but not nearly enough to warrant lynching or the death penalty. She was already down, probably dead. Anything up to that point is justifiable in my view, and probably what they've been ordered to do.

At close range, though.  I'd imagine he'd have been able to identify whether or not she was alive at that point; the 'close range' part is the key point, IMO it's what seperates the arguments of justifiable action and deliberate homicide.

[Cabbie]

yeah, saw it on the news the other day. Just plain tragic.

[vyper]

You don't shoot weans. There's no justification - even if you do suspect the child of being used as a trojan horse, they're innocent to it all. By all means force her to leave or move back - but you do not kill her.

[Bobboau]

the fact that the others working in the unit turned him in, I think speaks volumes for the diference between Isrealies and Palestinians.

[karajorma]

And the fact that they didn't do anything much about it afterwards says what about them?

[Eviscerator]

Originally posted by Bobboau
you realy haven't been paying atention to the other political threads have you

I do not think he has Bob. Once reason I do not bother to get into these discussions on these boards is because the of the lack of maturity and factual data expressed in them. This one is one of the few exceptions.

I think I possess a perspective that no one else, except Sandiwch, does on this board. While I totally condemn what this so-called officer has done, I have also worked with the IDF on several occasions and I KNOW that this sort of thing is totally condemned by them as well. Based on my experiences with them, I am certain that they are just as appalled as you are. Just because this man has not been prosecuted yet does not mean he will not be. I heard that this was a recent event and prosecution will only take place after a proper investigation is completed. I know you want to ask: "What need is there for an investigation? He is GUILTY!" That maybe so, but if they were to prosecute him without regard to his legal rights, the system would be lowering itself to the level of this monster's act. Just as you are for demanding his immediate punishment or suggesting that you would lynch him.

Further, I possess another unique perspective. During a gun battle in Somalia, a nine year old boy in Adide's miltia had two of my team-mates pinned behind a burned out vehicle with a MAT-49 sub-gun. I shot him down. The Army ruled the engagment justified, but I will always live with the guilt. Call me baby-killer if you want, but nothing you can say to me has not already been said BY me.

IMO, this man's INITIAL actions were horrible, but justified. His actions after the initial engagement most certainly were NOT, and I think he should be punished.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Standing in a street = don't be so quick to shoot

Firing a submachine gun at you = shoot to kill.

Well, if you consider only the fact that he shot her after she was down, yeah, I'd consider that reprehensible, but not nearly enough to warrant lynching or the death penalty. She was already down, probably dead. Anything up to that point is justifiable in my view, and probably what they've been ordered to do.

So pumping a clip into her just to make sure she's dead is justifiable to you? I hope I'm reading it wrong...

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
So pumping a clip into her just to make sure she's dead is justifiable to you? I hope I'm reading it wrong...

You apparently skipped the "up to that point" part of my post.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Phew...Yeah, guess id did

[kasperl]

People, why is the only way to shoot someone to kill em? Why not shoot the girl in the leg, and stay away untill you've got a good view of the backpack?

[Genryu]

As it has been said, if she was a terrorist indeed, she could have some sort of bomb strapped on herself, and the poor schmuck coming to check the bookbag could have been blown away. While I despise the guys for shooting children, I can sort of understand them. What I hope is that the nutjob who emptied a full clip into an already down, killed or not, children, will get the boots on mental disorder grounds.

[Gloriano]

, why is the only way to shoot someone to kill em?

Because in war zone or in terrorism threat there is only one way to do job or just try capture them (Terrorism threat only)

It could be that IDF soldiers did think that girl was suicide bomber (age don't matter)

[TrashMan]

Regardles what they tought, it was a ten year old girld walking slowly up a long street. They could have fired a warning shot, or yelled at her to stop. It's not like she poped 2 feet away from them. She was in the distance first!!
But no - they fired imidiately at her.

and I don't like the IDF one bit. Blasting refugee camps and runing over people with buldozers is not anti-terrorism fighting.

[vyper]

[q](age don't matter)[/q]

You apply that to pulling as well HIG?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Genryu
As it has been said, if she was a terrorist indeed, she could have some sort of bomb strapped on herself, and the poor schmuck coming to check the bookbag could have been blown away. While I despise the guys for shooting children, I can sort of understand them. What I hope is that the nutjob who emptied a full clip into an already down, killed or not, children, will get the boots on mental disorder grounds.

Well, i mentioned this earlier;
 the Israeli army has bomb defusal robots for this exact reason.   With the girl not moving, there would surely not have been any urgency to preclude this.

 Also, if she was carrying and able to activate a bomb, surely going up to shoot her at close range was incredibly & unecessarily dangerous?

[Annihilation]

How do the IDF justify firing with TANK CANNONS at boys throwing STONES?

[TrashMan]

Don't you understand?
Those boys are EVIL TERRORIST  bent on destroying everything that's good and pure. They might even be hiding bombs in those stones.
So, the IDF, in it's righteous crusade will not only use teh tank cannons, but allso buldozers (why the hell not? You can demolish whole towns with it and run people over - back and forth)  and everything else to purge the wold of palestini...erm...terrorists.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Regardles what they tought, it was a ten year old girld walking slowly up a long street. They could have fired a warning shot, or yelled at her to stop. It's not like she poped 2 feet away from them. She was in the distance first!!
But no - they fired imidiately at her.

That's the misinformed opinion that people like you - no personal offense, dude - form from reading just one POV, one article, one news report. More on this below.

Originally posted by TrashMan
and I don't like the IDF one bit. Blasting refugee camps and runing over people with buldozers is not anti-terrorism fighting.

I don't like terrorists one bit. Shooting at heavily armed military units and then hiding in refugee camps packed to overflowing with innocent men, women and children. Such nasty people, those IDF refugee-camp-wiper-outers.

As for the bulldozers - pfft. Blame the driver on the highway whose car your daughter jumped out in front of and subsequently got smeared all over the asphalt by with manslaughter. Real logical thinking there.


Anyway, to get back on track here. Two articles from the Israeli media's POV on the issue:

Jerusalem Post - Analysis: Confirming the kill

Ha'aretz -  Officer on tape says he `confirmed kill' of Gaza girl

Both of those, I would think, highlight how this event IS being dealt with by Israel.

One last point. I asked my dad what he had heard abou this SNAFU, since I hadn't been keeping up with things. I don't have the source at the moment (I'll try to get it though), but he reported the following.

Supposedly, the girl had been told by terrorists to plant her backpack near the outpost, in the "no-fly-zone" (or whatever it's called - the area they're not to breach). The plan was to then ambush the soldiers who leave the outpost to check out what the girl planted.

But instead, the soldiers opened fire after shouting repeatedly at the girl to stop and go back. The rest, I believe, is known.

Finally: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=72669

[aldo_14]

Why didn't the terrorists shoot the officer who shot the girl, then?

NB:bbc news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3733638.stm

[erratus]

In no way, shape or form do I want to be seen as defending his actions, but a bit of context is always nice...

Do you remember how, a few months ago, Arafat's Fatach members gave a 13-year-old boy a bag with a bomb in it and how, when the boy was discovered at a checkpoint (and people wonder why the checkpoints are there!) his handlers tried to blow up the bag (and the boy)? Not nice.

So a 13-year-old girl with a school bag wanders into a closed military zone (which is clearly labeled as such). The soldiers tell the girl (in Arabic) to bugger off, but she comes closer. So a soldier shoots her. Now, this is against the rules and that is why this soldier was convicted of the crime the other day in a CIVILIAN (note: not military) court.

Personally, I don't think shooting the girl was wrong. (By regularly using child combatants in the past four years, the Pallies have condemned ALL their children to be suspected of being combatants from now on). What I object to was the way the soldier 'confirmed the kill' by shooting her repeatedly at close range. That is wrong, and punishment worthy.

Obviously, the usual liberal 'peace in our day' types have been condemning this soldier and all of Israel repeatedly since this happened. But what I don't understand is why we don't hear the bleeding hearts condemn Pallies when they run up the street with Israeli entrails in their hands? It has happened - on numerous occasions.

Moreover, when a Pallie kills an Israeli civilian, the rest of them cheer in the street! Football tournaments are named after him! Streets are named after him! Summer camps for children are named after him! You think I'm joking? Have a look here http://www.pmw.org.il/murderF.htm, here http://www.pmw.org.il/4 Loopholes in US Anti-Terror Laws_b.htm and here http://www.pmw.org.il/sperep6-033.html!

But where are the condemnations of Pallie actions? Two sets of standards for two different people groups? That's racism, people! (Not to mention hypocrisy!)