OK - I don’t want to go into the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or about the use of suicide bombers by the Palestinians against Israeli civilians - there have been threads aplenty about that. I want to ask: What kind of people give an 11 year old boy a bomb he doesn’t know about, make plans to blow him up amongst the soldiers manning the checkpoint if he is discovered, and actually try to blow the kid up when he is discovered?
How can anyone condone this kind of use of a child as a walking bomb? This is completely sick, even by the standards of the current conflict!
What must a Palestinian mother think when she finds out she nearly lost her child like this? How can the terrorists justify this? How does the local population let the terrorist elements get away with these sorts of actions, that end up hurting them a lot more than they hurt us Israelis anyway?
Even if you sympathize with the Palestinian side of the conflict (and OK, I admit I don’t…), how can they expect anyone hearing about this in the world to think better of them and their cause for acting in this manner?
Anyway I look at it - even politically, and certainly morally, I just don’t understand these guys…
Gah! This is what comes of comparing too many sources… The link I gave is, of course, to the BBC coverage of this story, and the quote is from there as well :o
Same facts as Ha’Aretz, so not really material to the gist of the rant… but sorry for the confusion, anyway
Actually, the more nuanced report that I heard about it is
the child was used to carry packages from one side to the other through military posts.
a child, presumably the child involved, told this in an interview shown on TV. About that particular package he said that someone else carried it upto the point where he took it over to bring it across the checkpoint. He added that it was particularly heavy but that he didn’t know what was inside.
Palestinian organisations known to organize suicide bombings firmly deny that they ever used or will use children, let be children who are unaware of what they are given.
The suggestion was made that the package, containint a distance-detonator didn’t explode as was planned, thus remained intact while it shouldn’t have been intact whenever the child came along to pick it up.
So that leaves the possibility open that :
It is not all truth what comes in the press, on neither side of the stories. Which in any case is obvious to anyone in the possession of a critical mind.
The package was left there to explode killing Israeli soldiers, yet there was no direct intention that this child would pick it up.
The Palestinian organisations lie
The Israelis lie.
I’m not going overthere to find out personally. Maybe some of you like to do that?
Salaam. A
Well, for better or worse I am here to look around… The story was corroborated (in Israeli press) by several sources, including an interview with the soldier who discvered the bomb in the kid’s bag - you think she’s lying? Planted?
I wish it didn’t, but the whole thing rings awfully (in the full sense of the word) true
re-reading, I see that I’m a bit inaccurate
in point 2.
The child gave the impression that when he came along, the package was already where he picked it up = it looks like that it was not handed to him directly, but left somewhere and thus he picked it up for transporting it.
Wether it was explicitely meant to be carried by a child, let be this particular child, is in this version an open question.
If there was a package with explosive at that particular location, then in my opinion it was meant to explode. No more no less.
This child or other children or Israelis or Palestinians would have been killed or wounded and then this would have been clearly the intention.
Salaam. A
Come on, how likely is it that they would schedule someone to come pick up a package that they didn’t expect to be there anymore (because it had blown up)? I find that unlikely in the extreme. Face it, these animals don’t care who they kill as long as it “advances” their cause. I wish the average Palistinian would wake up and realize that he prolly would be living in his own country by now if it wasn’t for these terrorist fucks.
And how the fuck are the terrorists supposed to know that there will be no children around when it goes off? Do you really think that someone who blows up bombs on crowded streets cares if children are hurt or killed? I would imagine they love it when kids are the victims, more outrage, more press, more terror for them. Face it, you’re trying to defend the undefendable.
You do your membername honour, since your comment on what you quoted from my post is indeed weird enough to make me smile.
Care to actually read what I write, and what you quoted out of my post and then your weird comment again?
Because I can’t see any link between my post and yours.
Yeah, 'cause we know that organisations known to organize suicide bombings should be taken for their word. Seriously, I just about pissed my pants when I read that. Thanks for the laugh.
SHALOM, CM
I don’t think that at such checkpoint anything is “scheduled”. Let be people and children who hang around there trying to make a bit of money with carrying packages or other things across.
If it was “scheduled” to be brought across to where it was supposed to have exploded, then in my opinion this particular child would have been the classic example of “being at the wrong place at the wrong moment”.
Actually, I don’t laugh whenever I see or hear denial from Israeli side while the corpses of dead Palestinian children are silent witnesses of the other side of the story. That you laugh about a Palestinian denial of this story because you can’t even even think about the possibility that Israelis could have twisted here and there a bit in this story says in my opinion a lot. If not enough.
That you even laugh when someone you don’t know posts what his information is on a certain event - and as such only brings information and nothing else - makes me question your ability to look at information as information.
My guess is that you react emotionally to whatever information that doesn’t suit your preconditioned mindset instead of using your logic.
So I say:
It was meant to explode.
It thus didn’t mather to the makeers if this child or other children or other Palestinian civilians or Israeli civilians where killed or wounded together with the targetted Israeli soldiers.
Now read your post again and tell me how you come to the reasoning that it could be in relation with mine? = What is unclear to you about my reasoning that you must add yours to it, reasoning in fact the same as I do, yet acting as if I don’t know what I talk about and thus questioning me about my own reasoning.
In my opinion that makes your reasoning and the result of it rather weird since you further even make the claim that I “defend the undefendable”.
said to me “No children would have been killed by the bomb, it was the intention of the bomb makers that no children be killed”. Did you mean something else?
