Six-year-old Palestinian boy killed during clashes

[DuctapeFatwa]

A six-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead yesterday when Israeli soldiers opened fire at stone-throwers in a West Bank refugee camp, Palestinian medics said.

Palestinian witnesses said Mohammad Naim Isryda was shot in the chest while playing near his house in the Balata refugee camp in the city of Nablus. Medics said Isryda died shortly afterwards. The army had no immediate comment.

Palestinian medics also said 13-year-old Nur Emran died of wounds he sustained when Israeli soldiers shot him in the head...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/22/1071941622187.html

[izzie]

1. Did he have a stone?

We freedom fighters are after school kids who have stones.

[bluesoul]

2. Yeah I guess

he was a "terrorist". What else could he be, right? Anyone being against Sharon and his policies must be...

[Resistance]

30. better take him out anyway

nobody will notice

[Gimel]

3. Actually, it is unclear

The five-year-old was killed by a stray bullet during the firefight. It is unclear from which side or which gun the bullet which struck the child came from. Perhaps more information could be forthcoming if there was a proper investigation. Unfortunately, that may never happen. Unfortunately again, the child was killed in a battle between militants and IDF. Not an intentional target, however.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/373994.html

[bluesoul]

4. Yeah sure

it's all unintentional when it's about IDF killing people. The most moral army on planet BS...

[The Magistrate]

5. It Probably Was Unintentional, Sir

It is greatly to be regretted, in any case. War is a damned bad business, and best avoided where humanly possible to do so. It is always accompanied by occurances such as this.

[dudeness]

6. unintentional or not..

it would appear a coronial inquiry would best ascertain the question at hand..

[The Magistrate]

9. That Is True, Sir

The Israeli government is most remiss in not looking sternly into such occurances, and meting out real punishment where soldiers have been acting withoit due concern for the likely consequences of their fire, as well as using such investigations to refine tactical doctrine to reduce the possiblity of such occurances in future.

[dudeness]

11. Indeed, Mr Magistrate..

as it seems to me a political solution to this conflict is not being embraced by either combatant, then the rule of law can be seen as the only handbrake to slow atrocities committed by both parties..however, both must accede to the rule of law..that is unfortunately doubtful..

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. I think the "probably unintentional" argument ran out of juice

on about the third or 4th child.

After 3 years of around 30% of civilians murdered being children, the "unintentional" song is a compelling argument for disarming the IDF pending extensive marksmanship training and the deployment of an international force containing a total of 0 US or UK citizens, who can serve as monitors and document the grievous atrocities committed by these savage toddlers against the sharon's defenseless gunmen.

[The Magistrate]

8. We Have Some Definitional Problems Here, Sir

My recollection of the figures is that something under five percent of the persons killed by either side are minors aged twelve years or less. To get to the thirty percent figure, you must pitch your definition up towards eighteen, or even twenty-one; technically accurate in a small way, but a deliberate blurring where meant to suggest this incident is typical of nearly a third of the Arab Palestinian fatalities in the conflict. That it most definitely is not.

[bluesoul]

10. Under 18 are

are still children...

[tinnypriv]

13. Under 18 = children (by the definition of almost everyone on the planet)

Israel excepted.

The shameful abuse of these children by a minority in the occupied territories (i.e. giving them guns, taking them to Hamas rallies etc) does not change that fact.

[The Magistrate]

19. There Remains, Sir

Some signifigant differences between a six year old and a sixteen year old; having been parent to both ages that is most clear to me.

Most people do not conceive of teen-agers as interchangeable with first-graders, though certainly teen-agers are hardly mature adults, and are minors under the law.

[newyorican]

14. Actually...

referring to children aged 13 to 18 as something other than children is the only blurring I detect on this particular point. Facts can be damn inconvenient at times, hence the urge to blur them. Everybody does it, so you are not alone.

[Gimel]

15. Over 14 are legitimate soldiers

According to the Geneva Conventions, it is forbidden to employ under 14 year olds in military operations. Above that age is therefore legal.

[Forkboy]

16. People should pause

and think about what this subthread is actually about.

Now we know it's legal to kill 15 year olds.Glad we could all agree on that :-(

[bluesoul]

18. So children above 14

are LEGITIMATE targets of the IDF Gimel? Please do explain this...

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. Thanks, Forkboy!

I think that is a very good suggestion. It is difficult to draft a sound argument for the murder of civilians of any age, regardless of how the post-attack press statements are worded.

[Resistance]

34. difficult for some

not too difficult for others, unfortunately. :(

[Gimel]

35. Combat age

The issue is at what abe are young people allowed to carry arms in a combat, to fight for a cause. The age limit is 15. All killing is
:-( . The killing of any unarmed, non combat individual is contrary to the GC. If a 15 year old is carrying a weapon and is likely to use is, he becomes a legitimate target.

[Resistance]

36. unfortunately

children are also considered legitimate targets by the IDF if they're carrying a piece of bread

[Gimel]

41. Fortunately

you are wrong.

[tinnypriv]

17. They're soldiers, but still children

[Gimel]

40. Granted

but the IDF can't change that.

[Gimel]

52. Only 3 claims

per side, is that your claim? That's ridiculous. Where is it written in the Geneva Conventions? Many unintentional things occur every day. The climate, the terrain, the light, the haze and visibility all play a role in that, as well as the high stakes the soldiers are working against.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

22. There Would Be Many, Many More Dead, Sir, If That Were The Case

But you are aware of that. You simply think that hyperbolic overstatement somehow increases the effectiveness of your advocacy, but in fact it does not. Once you have gilded it, it is no longer a lily, but a cheap piece of kitsch no one will want on their mantelpiece in a decent vase.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

25. You Do Not State Facts, Sir

You state a view of facts, a theory by which you seek to organize facts. It is a fact that many people, most of them combatants by reasonable definition, have been killed by the Israeli military over the past three years of open hostilities. It is a view, or theory, seeking to explain this fact, that you propose, namely that it is done for cruel sport. You cannot adduce much in support of this theory; you cannot point, for example, to facts of celebratory jubilation by Israeli soldiers after such an incident, that it would be the most likely explaination for. It seems that you begin with the supposition that Israel and Israeli soldiers in particular are evil, and therefore their actions must be stated to be the most evil things you can think of.

Because it is not my view that there is any particular "thirst for blood" on the part of the Israeli soldiery, not a moment of my time is spent justifying such a fiction. Close thought on warfare is not too comfortable a business, but my mind is a rather grim old thing: it does not trouble me much, and someone must do it. War is an endemic fact of the human condition, and it is necessary accordingly to study and reach some understanding of it. But it is a squalid and brutal thing, even when done for genuinely good purpose. Much of life, unfortunately, is an exercise in doing evil in the hope some good might come of it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Oh, really, my good man

There can be no doubt that a suicide bomber knows he is killing noncombants. That person may have a grotesque justification for the act, but it is the murder of noncombantants nevertheless. Once can be sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian nationalism and still condemn this practice as a war crime.

Your every argument is loaded with the assumption that each and every time an IDF soldier fires, he is willfully targeting innocent civilians. That is nonsense. This is a guerrilla war. If you are at all familiar with Mao Tse-tung's treatise, On Guerrilla Warfare, then you are aware that a guerrilla army blends in with the people. In that respect, the people incur certain risks, such as taking fire when perhaps they should not. If is difficult for the regulars against whom the guerrillas fight to know when one is a combatant and when one is not. This is a problem regulars have faced in every guerrilla conflict, including US servicemen in Vietnam.

I will agree that the Israelis could take more care than they do to minimize civilian casualties. However, to paint the IDF as thugs who murder for sport is simply ludicrous.

[Resistance]

32. No my argument is not loaded with that assumption

The IDF does engage in murdering for sport - often enough to the point where I feel it can be categorized as a group that does murder for sport. Do you deny this ever happens?

In an honest debate, you would admit that there are some senseless, inhumane acts of violence on the part of the IDF, and I admit that plenty of what the IDF does is legitimate self-defense. The question is how much is outright aggressive brutality. In my opinion the brutality is too much -- way too much. You see the headlines that come through this forum. IDF kills boy. IDF shoots peace activist. IDF kills unarmed civilians. IDF slams missile into crowd of civilians. On and on.

How could you possibly say it is ludicrous to paint the IDF as thugs who murder for sport, after considering these regular reports of IDF terrorism? Don't tell me it's all self-defense. It isn't.

[Gimel]

42. As pointed out

and is often the case. Headlines often trumpet hysterically what is in fact an over-reaching false hood. Base your beliefs of headlines, and you'll never separate truth from falsehood.

The sporting game of Hamas is plastered on Islamic sites after every suicide attack. The reversal of roles does not force the truth.

[The Magistrate]

29. You Use The Word 'Terrorist', Sir, As If It Had Some Descriptive Meaning

It does not.

On one level, it could be taken as indicating a tactic, but in that regard, it is far too broad to be of any use: all use of violence aims to strike terror into surviving on-lookers. Even in conventional force combat, the aim of killing a soldier is not so much to subtract his efforts from the fight, but to strike the terror they might be next into the men beside and behind him. The rule of thumb in tactical manuals is that if one quarter of the personnel and equipment in a force are disabled, its combat power may be considered effectively broken.

Those persons who are commonly called terrorists are simply private individuals who have arrogated to themselves the use of violence for some political end, which is traditionally a prerogative of the sovereign alone. The thing is really more a species of trade-unionist's exclusion, like a Carpenters' local complaining that non-union tradesmen are erecting back porches in the city. It is the competition, rather than the work itself, that is being complained of.

The only meaning conveyed by use of the word is that the utterer does not approve of the violence being so described, and hopes to sway other people to share that distaste without too much thought or effort. Thus, it says something about the person using the term, and nothing about the persons to whom the term is being applied. That any meaning is conveyed is thus a species of accident, and never, really, the "meaning" ostensibly intended by the speaker.

The only meaningful question is whether an act of violence in war is within the bounds of the laws of war, or is not. An attack that aims solely to kill enemy civilians is, beyond any conceivable argument, a crime of war, and the sort of action by Hamas you allude to is unquestionably such an attack. An attack that aims to kill enemy combatants, and also injures some enemy civilians, may be a crime of war, but may well not be, depending on a great many highly variable, and ultimately subjective, criteria. Shooting towards someone who threw a satchel charge, and hitting someone else, is certainly such a case. The laws of war, as a practical matter, allow for a good deal of muddle and error, as these are inevitable features of war, even when every attempt is made to stay within its lawful bounds.

My reference to the proportion of combatants to non-combatants is based on my recollection of a survey of the total casualties over the entire three years of the conflict, which indicates a little more than half of those killed by Israeli armed forces are combatants, while a little over a fifth of the Israelis killed by the various Arab Palestinian irregular bodies are combatants. You may attempt to contrive whatever theory you wish to explain this; mine is that the Israelis are a bit better about directing their violence toward enemy combatants, overall, than are the Arab Palestinian irregulars.

[Resistance]

33. thanks for the observations

You seem to hold an assumption that every act of the IDF military is one of self-defense and fighting and rooting out an enemy. Sometimes the enemy combatant is killed, and other times tragic 'mistakes' are made. The question for you might be: Does the IDF take enough appropriate measures to reduce the numbers of innocents killed? Therefore, regardless of whether they do or not, the worst that can be charged against them is an extreme negligence.

I do not share that view. My view is that it is not all self-defense and it is not only 'unfortunate mistakes' when innocent civilians are killed. Plenty of it is, no doubt - but there is alot that is outright vicious: taking shots at kids, gunning down unarmed civilians, tankfire and helicopter fire into crowds -- there are many acts of cold-blood with no justification whatsoever. It is inconcievable to me that all these civilians, kids, and non-combatants are the results of IDF military operation gone bad. It simply isn't so. There is murder for sport going on. Do you really think the IDF is more moral than their Hamas counterparts (and therefore would never stoop to such awful levels of inhumanity)? Please, don't fool yourself.

[JohnLocke]

38. How 'bout this?

"Does the IDF take enough appropriate measures to reduce the numbers of innocents killed"

When the terrorists "take enough appropriate measures to reduce the numbers of innocents killed," then the IDF will.

[Resistance]

39. so you admit

that the IDF is as murderous as their Hamas counterparts.

[Cassandra]

58. No

and your repeated attempts to get others to agree with you are doomed to failure. Those who will agree with you arrived at this party already convinced. The rest of us know you're wrong.

[number6]

61. Resistance you make some good points ..

:thumbsup:

[Jheka_]

47. Much truth here

Kick! for more power!


:kick: :kick:

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Firefight?

The article you posted a link to claims nothing of the sort, Gimel. All it says is: 'Army sources said that it appears that the incident occurred after an explosive device was thrown at a paratroop force that was on a mission inside the camp. The sources explained, that according to a preliminary investigation, the soldiers fired warning shots towards a nearby wall.'So where has this claim of a firefight and militants firing at troops come from?


Violet...

[Gimel]

43. So you can claim that

an "explosive device" is not connected to a firefight? Com'on now. That is ludicrous.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I'm going on what the article says...

There's nothing ludicrous about sticking to what an article says and not inventing scenarios. Nowhere did the article mention a firefight. I'll repeat it again for you what was said, so feel free to point out where I'm failing to see that a firefight was involved: "Army sources said that it appears that the incident occurred after an explosive device was thrown at a paratrooper force that was on a mission inside the camp. The sources explained, that according to a preliminary investigation, the soldiers fired warning shots towards a
nearby wall."

If we are to take what the IDF source says at face value, which I know some folk here do, what happened was an explosive device was thrown and the soldiers fired warning shots. How on earth does that get turned into a firefight??

Violet...

[Gimel]

45. If you prefer

you can refer to it as "clashes" as the title of the piece does. If an explosive device does not imply "fire" to you. The important point is that there was a conflict and a stimulus which prompted the firing of "rubber bullets" as the article points out. The youth was hit with a rubber bullet, supposedly non-lethal.

The mistaken and tragic point is that in this case a rubber bullet was lethal.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'd prefer it if everyone stuck to the facts...

Wouldn't you? And it was you and not the article that claims there was a fire-fight, Gimel. Even if what the IDF spokesman says is true, lobbing an explosive device and a return of warning shots is in no way anywhere close to a fire-fight...

You make it sound as though no Palestinians have ever been killed by these 'non-lethal' rubber bullets before. They have...

Violet...

[Gimel]

49. I could have added

that it is not the first death by a rubber-bullet, but that doesn't change the facts. I never even hinted that it was the first time it has happened. Stick to the facts of what I said please, not your embellishments.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. And I should have added...

That in the report you posted a link to, there was no mention of rubber-bullets, just the same as there was no mention of a fire-fight....

And what you said about rubber bullets was: 'The mistaken and tragic point is that in this case a rubber bullet was lethal.' And please note that I didn't claim you said it was the first death by rubber bullets. What I said was: 'You make it sound as though no Palestinians have ever been killed by these 'non-lethal' rubber bullets before.' Which, indeed was how it sounded...

Violet...

[Gimel]

53. I can't be responsible

for your thinking so.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. So, where was that reference in the article to rubber bullets?

See, that's the thing, Gimel. The article you posted had no reference to rubber bullets, nor to a firefight. Other than that, I'm not sure why you think anyone would see you as being responsible for my thinking anything. All I do is read what's posted and comment, preferably on factual stuff...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

54. The point is that Israelis are just supposed to sit there and take it.

And take it. And take it.

[Forkboy]

12. Little Israel is doing right

there is no telling what this child might have done had he lived longer.Little Israel can take no chances on her safety.Today's rock thrower = tommorow's ?.

Be glad.

[drewb]

31. Would he have grown up to be a terrorist?

I think you know the answer...

[Forkboy]

48. Yes,it's obvious he was a terrorist in waiting

Little Israel can take no chances.Better to destroy 4000 homes and be on the safe side.Who cares about the palestinians,they're barely human.

[brainshrub]

23. If that kid has any brothers,

do you want to bet what they are going to do when they grow up?

[Resistance]

37. be targets for murder too?

[Darranar]

51. The Peace Fence...

bringing peace to everyone.*

*Palestinians excepted

[Jim Sagle]

55. No, they're included as well.

[bluesoul]

56. No

they're not...

[Jim Sagle]

59. Yes they are - except for the ones who try to breach the fence.

"Good fences make good neighbors." - Robert Frost

[number6]

60. no....

good little Palestinian sub humans don't u dare breach the fence
thats on your land :eyes: :crazy:

peace fence my ass ...