Where’s Alessan when we need him? Didn’t he serve in the Israeli Army? I bet he could shed some light on this.
My take is that it’s a perspective thing; the kid may not even be in the line of where the barrel’s pointing, and it’s just the 2-d nature of the photo that makes it look like he’s pointing the gun at the boy.
Just to clear up your ignorance, IDF troops are armed.
Including while they’re in Israel proper.
Presumably the soldier should keep the rifle in his pocket when he’s not on guard.
Simple as this: the picture was being presented as the soldier pointing the gun at the child, which makes a pretty huge difference. I’m not interested in debating the issue of Israel and the occupation, just the issue of misrepresenting photos to make a point. I think it’s intellectually dishonest.
[QUOTE=newcomer]
What difference does it make if the soldier is pointing directly at a child or not?
[/QUOTE]
It makes all the difference in the world, obviously.
In this world of course. If you can’t see the difference between a soldier standing guard and pointing his gun away from a child, and one doing the same thing but pointing his gun at a child then you need to check your calibration…it’s off.
As Finn pointed out, the IDF is always armed, even in Israel. The US military is often under arms in public as well. And I’ve seen similar pictures of US and other allied soldiers under arms with children about…even US military personnel under arms and giving candy or other treats to Iraqi or Afghani children. It only seems to become an outrage when it’s someone from the IDF doing it, and even then you need some camera trickery to pull it off, because most people are going to see the distinction between merely standing on duty with gun pointed down and to the left as a child looks on as different than standing there with a gun pointed right at a child.
Yeah, really really. You need to get out more if you think that children are sheltered from ever even seeing a gun, and that the mere presence of a soldier holding a gun near a child sets off your outrage detector so easily. Or, is it only going off if the child is Palestinian and the soldier from the IDF…?
-XT
I’m not interested in debating the issue of Israel and the occupation either.
I posted a question as to what EXACTLY is the difference and why is it important? I’d be interested to find out what and why do you think it is.
As I hinted in my post, how come pointing a gun AT a child is somehow crazy and outrageous but standing next to a child with a rifle on stand-by is somehow… what… “cute”, “respectful”, “considerate”, “reasonable”?
I think that intellectual dishonesty starts when insisting that there is some significant difference between two acts. Using images and creating paradigms around them that are unnatural and fundamentally flawed is intellectual dishonesty. As if there was a never IDF soldier who pointed gun at a child? Or, as if IDF soldier can point a gun at a civilian as long as it is 18 and older and we’re all happy that occupation is proceeding in accordance with accepted rules of war?
You really mean to tell me that this image makes you MORE angry? Unless, of course, you don’t have a complex, essay long elaboration as to what we see is not really what we see. For example, rifle is not pointed at a baby, baby might have explosives, baby actually might lunge at a soldier… you know, all those intellectually “honest” viewpoints one can take here on Dope.
I’d say it’s normal in Penn Station, which isn’t exactly the occupied territories.
Actually, that’s where sanity starts.
You spent a lot of words but you said nothing of significance.
You did not answer what the difference is - it may be obvious to you and you may have a well calibrated perceptions but that’s more BS than an answer.
Also, referring to one of most dishonest people on this Board does not count as an argument either.
It is an outrage with US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq too.
And as for going out more, trust me, I saw soldiers with guns around children more than I ever wanted ad more than I’ll ever forget – I saw them weeping over their dead parents and parents weeping over their dead child and I saw parents and children dead with no one to weep. I saw how quickly a stand-by rifle turns to point and shoot. And that is why I’m so incensed by this issue of making an important distinction using a single image as if that image carries a moral weight. To me, the sole purpose of that image and intellectually “honest” debate is to desensitize people to such a degree that at one point things that we used to get offended by we don’t find offensive in future. It is used to create a version of the world in which people lose moral compass and common sense and are navigated by short lived popular belief.
The difference is that pointing a weapon at a child is threatening that child directly, whereas standing next to a child with a weapon at parade rest is not.
See above.
I thought you didn’t want to debate Israel or the occupation.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a personal insult, and it’s inappropriate for this forum. Don’t do it again.
Because- Oh my god! That car’s going to run that guy over!
That is what that photo means, right? That because there’s someone in front of a car, the context is completely irrelevant?
newcomer: I walk past armed policemen every day, as do most commuters in DC. None of us notices or cares. But if an armed policeman actually pointed a gun at me? Well, now the situation is very different. In a split-second, the cop could make the decision to fire, and I’d be dead or badly injured. That is a very different state of affairs than walking by a cop who isn’t pointing his gun at me.
Now, you might argue that the IDF soldier shouldn’t be in this kid’s neighborhood in the first place. Depending on where the photo was taken, I might even agree with you. But even if the soldier really shouldn’t be there in a just and perfect world, I’m much happier to see the guy isn’t prepared to end this kiddo’s life on a moment’s notice. Aren’t you?
[QUOTE=newcomer]
You spent a lot of words but you said nothing of significance.
[/QUOTE]
Pot…meet kettle. I answered your fatuous questions with fatuous answers.
I didn’t think I needed to. The difference is that simply holding a gun around a child is fairly innocuous, unless you are looking for RO. Pointing a gun at a child is a threatening gesture towards said child. Get it now? Most people don’t need to have this explained as it’s, you know, common sense.
It seems obviously to everyone in this thread, with one glaring exception. So yeah…you definitely need to check your calibration.
Well, as we saw above with the difference in perception between simply holding a gun while a child is around and pointing a gun AT the child, we also have a difference in opinion about Finn as well. C’est la vie…
Why? The soldiers are there. They have to carry weapons. Children are there…they live there. Why is it an outrage that US and allied soldiers carry weapons in proximity to children? Why is it an outrage that they give treats and candy to children while still being under arms? What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
I don’t trust you. Sorry, there it is. And your analysis is skewed towards your rather particular view point and world view. That you can’t see a difference between a soldier simply holding a gun and one pointing a gun at a child pretty much demonstrates this perfectly.
-XT
In one, there is a gun pointed at someone, in another, there is not a gun pointed at someone.
As for why it would matter if you have a gun pointed at you or not, I think most people can understand why that is important. I’d even hazard a guess that most people, if offered the choice between having a gun pointed at them and not having a gun pointed out them, would not only choose to not have a gun pointed at them, they also wouldn’t need to have the difference explained to them in order for them to make the choice.
By the way, perhaps I’ve missed it, but have the participants in or the location of the photo even been confirmed? Or is this just another Tuvia Grossman?
**Siam Sam **can jog my memory, but IIRC in Thailand, most bank guards routinely carry M-16s. Presumably children walk into the banks on occasion. Nobody freaks. Similarly, I’ve crossed a number of borders with armed military personnell.
Unless you’re a hoplophobe, a rifle in the same vicinity as a child is no more cause for alarm than any other potentially dangerous equipment. Would anyone panic if there was a picture of a child near a turned-off chainsaw?
The problem with this approach is that a non-menacing soldier is of small use as propaganda, as it will only rile up folks whose minds are already made up.
In short, why bother?
Pallywood strikes again.
That’s not his gun, it’s his rifle.
Is it me, or does the guard in this photo have a freakishly long left hand?
