21 thoughts on “After IDF Sniper’s Bullet Rips into Palestinian Boy’s Skull, General Claims He Was Injured in Bike Accident – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Haaretz elegantly summed all this up. ‘Doctors removed a bullet from Tamimi’s head. Army claims teen was hurt in bike crash.’

    What’s oppressive about the lies is that there’s not even a suggestion that anyone is concerned with their patent absurdity; they’re not even seriously intended to be believed. It’s just rhetorical fuel for those who themselves are indifferent to the truth.

    How can I explain my point here? There’s not even a desire to know what happened; these people operate in a world where truth is simply irrelevant. All that matters is concocting claims that serve to justify Israel’s behavior. It would be awkward if the the Israeli army had smashed Tamimi’s skull in; therefore it didn’t.

    It’s like listening to the ravings of a criminal lunatic; only it’s a very heavily armed, dangerous criminal lunatic that is still on the loose. How can people who think in this way be reasoned with? What possible settlement or agreement could be reached? I imagine we can elicit more falsehoods from them; I don’t see what else could occur.

  2. Anyway, this one should separate the men from the boys among Israel’s defenders.

    Only the most shameless will dare to speak up on Israel’s behalf in this instance; those who retain even an awareness of what decency might be will find silence is their only choice.

  3. Another aspect of it all is that the dishonesty here is hardly unusual.

    At the moment, the story of the death of a certain Yasin al-Saradih is also coming out. The IDF claimed (a) they shot him when he charged them with a knife, and (b) they administered first aid at the scene.

    Well, it turns out there’s video. Almost tediously, it turns out the IDF lied in this instance as well. No, Al-Saradih didn’t have a knife, and no, the IDF didn’t provide first aid.

    It really gets old. A statement from an Israeli source has no meaning beyond indicating what the speaker would like you to believe; they’re not merely dishonest but so routinely dishonest that their statements have no factual value at all.

  4. That statement was extremely foolish and embarrassing. Completely laughable!

    But I do wonder where did the ‘sniper’ enter the story? What do you base this claim on?

    1. @ Ariel Koren:

      I do wonder where did the ‘sniper’ enter the story? What do you base this claim on?

      Don’t you read your own media? That’s where I read it. IDF troops took up a position in an abandoned house in the village from which the boy was shot. Who else would sit in an abandoned house and shoot a boy who peeks his head over a wall, blowing off half his skull?

      1. The bicycle accident claim is absurd. The boy should never have been arrested and interrogated.

        Nonetheless, it is reasonable, that when soldiers are being pelted with rocks, etc., that they fire rubber bullets. It is also reasonable to shoot at an unknown head that appears over a wall.

        I’m not saying the shooting was right or justified, I’m saying that it was reasonable. The incident could be understood by a reasonable individual as, “Fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances.”

        1. ‘I’m not saying the shooting was right or justified, I’m saying that it was reasonable. The incident could be understood by a reasonable individual as, “Fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances.” ”

          Lol. This is definitely an example of the different morality that begins to operate as soon as one arrives on Planet Israel.

          It is NOT ‘fair, proper, or moderate’ to respond to stone throwing with indiscriminant and lethal force, and whenever it occurs anywhere else on the planet, it is greeted with outrage and condemnation. That’s been true since early in the nineteenth century.

          Under extreme circumstances, rubber-coated bullets have indeed been fired in civilized countries. They are invariably fired at at least moderate range, and aimed at the lower extremities so as to ensure they are not lethal.

          They are not fired at point-blank range into people’s heads in a deliberate attempt to kill, as is routine in Israel. It’s the sort of barbarity that only occurs in the most brutal third-wor

        2. @Dr John: read this very carefully. If you ever justify, and yes regasrdless of your sophisms you did justify Muhammad’s shooting, the maiming of a child again here I will ban you.

          Shooting s 15 year old boy is not reasonable or justified. And almost any other army in western world would discipline a soldier for doing this.

          I strongly doubt that Mohammed was injured by a rubber bullet. I suspect this was caused by live fire.

          There is no reason for soldiers to be in the village in the first place, hence no justification for killing & maiming the residents, as they do regularly.

          Don’t ever say here this garbage behavior is reasonable.

  5. Let’s face it: the IDF is a laugh a minute — or a day, anyway.

    Tonight’s special is…

    The IDF fires tear gas at a couple fleeing with their baby.

    ‘According to Arabic media, Israeli border police reportedly commented on the incident saying that the soldiers “did not see the baby” and that that the couple “resembled rock throwers.” ‘

    Right…this one, you gotta watch the video.

    http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=779905

    Sigh. On the one hand, I can see it if Richard doesn’t want his site degenerating into IDF follies du jour. On the other hand, the notion that their behavior is remotely reasonable, civilized, or even decent really has to be dispensed with.

    All you gotta do is look.

    1. @Colin

      All you gotta do is look, and you will see that from the soldier’s vantage point, the soldiers could not see that the couple were carrying an infant.

      @Richard

      “Shooting a 15 year old boy is not reasonable or justified.”

      I never said ‘justified’.

      You assume that the sniper could identify Mohammed as a fifteen year old. What is undisputed, is that Mohammed was peeking over a wall when he was shot. Not having witnessed the shooting, it is reasonable to suppose that the sniper could not see how old Mohammed was, much less, what Mohammed was doing behind the wall.

      I also defined reasonable as ‘fair and proper’. The primary job of a military sniper is too protect the soldiers in his unit.
      If a sniper senses a threat, he shoots lethal or non-lethal rounds at the threat. If the sniper only sees a head peeking over a wall, and he senses his soldiers might be in danger, he shoots. Shooting an unidentifiable target, using the scenario I described, would be ‘fair and proper’.

      Of course, I wasn’t there so I cannot offer any justification for the shooting.

      1. ‘All you gotta do is look, and you will see that from the soldier’s vantage point, the soldiers could not see that the couple were carrying an infant.’

        All you gotta do is look, and you will see that the claim that the soldiers thought the couple were throwing stones was absurd.

        ‘…he sense his soldiers might be in danger, he shoots…’

        All that was even allegedly going on was stone throwing. In civilized countries, this is simply not grounds for the use of deadly force — still less deadly force against a target that hasn’t even been demonstrated to be one of the stone throwers. His apparent crime was looking over the top of a fence.

        It’s almost enough to make one weep — to see the extent to which what might otherwise be decent, honest people will willingly prostitute their intellects and rationalize even the most blatant savagery and illegality if it was committed by Jews in Israel.

        Look at what you’ve written. You’ve defended gassing babies and then lying about it afterwards, and you’ve defended attempting to murder a fifteen year old who apparently hadn’t committed an offense of any kind. All you apparently object to is that the lies produced in the latter case weren’t convincing enough.

      2. Snowflakes is the term we can use for the IDF soldiers. They feel so frightened all the time despite never being in a real war.

        1. ‘…They feel so frightened all the time despite never being in a real war.’

          I don’t think they’re particularly frightened. I think they enjoy being able to terrify helpless people, even kill them if it gives them pleasure. Look at some of the videos, like where an Israeli soldier drops a knife in front of a pretty girl and then tries to force her to pick it up — so he can shoot her, of course. He winds up getting his charge by reducing her to tearfully begging for mercy. Eventually, some senior officer gets tired of watching the sport and calls off her tormentor.

          Go to Israel and join the IDF. Experience being a real man. It’s almost literally nauseating to contemplate.

      3. @ Dr John: For a sniper to assume indiscriminately that any figure appearing in his sights is a lethal danger and shoot to kill is criminal. It is not “fair,” “proper”, reasonable” or “justified” in any sense. In fact it is, or should be, a war crime.

        I would like that criminal to have Muhammad’s picture, displaying his misshapen skull, visible by his bedside so he sees it every night before he goes to sleep and every morning when he wakes up, for the rest of his life. I’d even designate that as his punishment after being found guilty of war crimes.

        I already told you that justifying murder and maiming is unacceptable here. Respond to this comment in similar fashion to your two earlier comments and you will lose your comment privileges here.

        1. ‘…I would like that criminal to have Muhammad’s picture, displaying his misshapen skull, visible by his bedside so he sees it every night before he goes to sleep and every morning when he wakes up, for the rest of his life. I’d even designate that as his punishment after being found guilty of war crimes.’

          The thing is, Richard, that I very seriously doubt this would bother him.

          I mean, I could be wrong — but the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests I’m not.

          1. @Colin Wright: I would like to assume that the sniper had an ounce of decency somewhere inside himself. I could be wrong. But I prefer to be hopeful, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

  6. Admittedly, this rate of kills is a bit above average for even the little nation that could. Still, it reinforces the point.

    ‘A Palestinian farmer was killed on Saturday by Israeli army fire near the Gaza Strip city of Khan Yunis, the health ministry of Hamas said.

    According to Palestinian reports, the farmer was shot while working on an agricultural plot of land he owned east of Khan Younis, Haaretz reported. The health ministry said he was moderately injured by Israeli fire and evacuated to the hospital. His condition later deteriorated and doctors pronounced him dead.

    A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said soldiers opened fire at a Palestinian man who had entered a “banned zone” near Gaza’s border with Israel, but gave no further details. He was shot after army forces feared he would try to cross, Haaretz said.

    The health ministry identified the farmer as 59-year-old Mohammed Abu Jumaa.’

    Aside from the rather monotonous murderousness, and the probable mendacity, note the ‘only in Israel’ element.

    The victim wasn’t even on Israeli soil — not even by Israel’s decidedly generous interpretation. He was in Gaza. It’s as if we took to shooting Mexican immigrants — but shooting them while they were still in Mexico, and shooting them when it was improbable they were trying to immigrate in the first place.

    It’s bizarre: an alternate universe of morality. Israel commits acts that are simply beyond the pale in the civilized world — and through sheer repetition, we start to accept the blatant evil as ordinary. Israel shoots everyone who comes within range. It’s perfectly reasonable behavior.

  7. ‘Peaceful American protestors ‘shot at point blank’.
    Shit. They weren’t even throwing rocks?
    Civilised, or ‘brutal third-wor’ (sic)?’

    I’ve been trying to find pictures of the shattered skulls of the victims in this case.

    Drawing a blank. Could you help me out?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *