Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The UN wrote a report? Let me put it on the fridge along with all the other ones. Ooh look they used colored crayons this time.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.

Nothing like a FoxNews Opinion piece to start your day.

Here, a little love from NPR
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/27/471885452/when-500-palestinians-lose-their-jobs-at-sodastream-whos-to-blame

Salon-HRC is an evilz pro Israel Warmonger
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/26/hillary_leads_to_more_war_her_latest_speech_on_israel_is_just_the_newest_horrific_example/
(full disclosure, I'm a Bernie supporter)

"Feel the Bern or we'll bite your ankles off!"
-Weinerdogs for Bernie

 d-usa wrote:
Nothing like a FoxNews Opinion piece to start your day.

I feel like my IQ just dropped 10% just from reading that...

A highlight from that second article:

Too many people already believe that Jews control the sources of power in our country (you only have to read tweets in support of Donald Trump to see this).

Is non-objective news a thing?

You mean non-subjective?
No, of course not, never has. If not directly biased, the choice the topics or guests reveal latent viruses.

 Frazzled wrote:
UN cites Israel as world's worst human rights violator:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/29/can-t-make-it-up-un-names-democratic-israel-as-world-s-top-human-rights-violator.html

To be fair, Israel has played no small role in perpetuating one of the largest humanitarian and international crisis' of the 20th century with sweeping repercussions across the region.

Also to be fair, there's at least 20 other countries I can think off off the top of my head with gak just as bad (if not worse) that deserve to be called out but never are

I feel like I've mentioned before that the only way to be consistently called out on your gak by the UN is to basically have no friends willing to stick their necks out for you, and there's really only one country on the planet that consistently manages to fit that description (and occasionally Sri Lanka).

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/27/471885452/when-500-palestinians-lose-their-jobs-at-sodastream-whos-to-blame

Interesting read

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Is non-objective news a thing?

Sorting through the bias is half the fun of primary source material

Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Well yeah, there's this sort of weird expectation that the soldiers act like human beings.

 Frazzled wrote:
This is why those who have a more neutral viewpoint, or heaven's to betsy, defend Israel, feel a bit put upon by nonsensical comparisons.

UN cites Israel as world's worst human rights violator:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/29/can-t-make-it-up-un-names-democratic-israel-as-world-s-top-human-rights-violator.html

I don't believe this is factually accurate.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm referring to the gist of the op-ed; specifically:

On March 24, 2016, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) wrapped up its annual meeting in New York by condemning only one country for violating women’s rights anywhere on the planet – Israel, for violating the rights of Palestinian women.

I don't believe this has actually happened. So far as my reading goes, they didn't denounce anyone at all.

Here is their main report which ended on March 24th, which doesn't mention Israel a single time, or any other country for that matter, other than in reference to X country which hosted Y talk.

During the course of the work, they produced a great many papers, one of which was dated December 15th, and it covers the challenges of Palestinian women. At no point is Israel denounced by this committee that I can see. They also produced a similar papers about the situations with ISIL, and North Korea, and so on. Even if Israel was denounced by this committee - and they weren't - then they certainly weren't alone (and those other countries were either, it was simply reporting on the facts of what is going on in those places).

I didn't look into the second claim because, well, it doesn't matter, when your story is 50% a lie at the 50% point, it sort of doesn't matter what happens in the rest of it, credibility-wise.

 Witzkatz wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.

Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.

Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.

Granted, in reality, there are countries which care very little. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Israel does not want to be mentioned in one sentence with the countries you just mentioned, so there's good reason for them to crack down on actions like this, I'd think.

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

The Dakka OT, where even extrajudicial murder can find at least one champion.

Right, which I find humorous.

I am an attacker, without warning, I stab and kill you with a knife in front of a group of people. Your family, friends, all suffer, and I am treated humanely. I might even get 20 years in prison with 3 meals a day and one day get released.

Or

I am an attacker, without warning, I stab you, you survive, but may have injuries you carry for the rest of your life. It prevents you from living a full life. Meanwhile, I am treated humanely, and may get something like 5-10 years in prison with 3 meals a day, and one day get released and brag about it.

Or

I am an attacker, without warning, I stab you, you survive with minor injuries, but suffer psychological issues due to the attack. Meanwhile, I am treated humanely, and may get something like less than 5 years in prison with 3 meals a day, and one day get released and brag about it.

I understand the 'civilized' argument, but to be honest pull that attempt on a family member or friend of mine and I can assure your I wont be thinking of the rights of the attacker.

To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.

Whatever the conditions that prompted the attacker to do what he did, he either judged that the punishment was worth the crime, or he didnt expect to survive. I hope its the second.

KTG17 wrote:
To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.

And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.

Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.

Granted, in reality, there are countries which care very little. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Israel does not want to be mentioned in one sentence with the countries you just mentioned, so there's good reason for them to crack down on actions like this, I'd think.

Very true. Israel tends to hold itself to West European military standards vs. those of its neighbors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.

And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.

But CHLers reached 1mm in Texas alone.

To the topic. Any update on the actual situation at this point?

 Ouze wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.

And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.

You obviously haven't been on the receiving end of violent crime, nor someone close to you. Americans murder each other to the tune of about 14k a year, and many of those found guilty sit on death row for decades. Its also the main reason the NRA is so powerful and guns will never be banned in the US. Guns are used in crime, but many feel the 'law' cannot protect them from those who have no fear of it, and have to protect themselves.

When the murder rate gets to 0, I'll consider being in favor of banishing capital punishment. In the meantime, some people act worst than animals, and should be treated as such.

KTG17 wrote:
. In the meantime, some people act worst than animals, and should be treated as such.

I know; some people even advocate the execution of incapacitated prisoners. It's absolutely barbaric.

Especially one that had just tried to murder another human being. Its amazing there aren't more people jumping to the prisoner's defense. :/

KTG17 wrote:
Especially one that had just tried to murder another human being. Its amazing there aren't more people jumping to the prisoner's defense. :/

I know right? I hate that whole "human rights" and "rule of law" thing. Why can't I just summarily execute everyone that I think deserves it?!?!

Rule of law? lol. Come on, where was this prisoner's concern for the rule of law when he was stabbing his victim?

 Witzkatz wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.

The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.

Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.

One small point: There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with soldiers engaging in offensive actions and actively trying to kill their enemy. Soldiers are not boxed in by some fethed up requirement to ONLY engage defensively against an immediate threat.

Not saying that applies to this case (I already stated my position earlier), but no one should be under the impression soldiers can only kill in defense.

 Goliath wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Especially one that had just tried to murder another human being. Its amazing there aren't more people jumping to the prisoner's defense. :/

I know right? I hate that whole "human rights" and "rule of law" thing. Why can't I just summarily execute everyone that I think deserves it?!?!

It was fact he was un armed , if he was armed and did not obey a request to stand down and moved with hostile intent to the shooter no one would bat a eyelid. You can kill, but they must be a hostile threat not a now contained prisoner on the ground with no access to a weapon. .

Of it comes put he had a frag grenade or such, so be it, justified. Details matter.

KTG17 wrote:
Rule of law? lol. Come on, where was this prisoner's concern for the rule of law when he was stabbing his victim?

So you're saying that if someone doesn't obey the rule of law then you feel that it is proper that you also ignore the rule of law?

 Goliath wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
. In the meantime, some people act worst than animals, and should be treated as such.

I know; some people even advocate the execution of incapacitated prisoners. It's absolutely barbaric.

If it helps, Team Wienie believes that cat lovers got no reason to live.
However the US capital justice system, is pretty flawed, and I would not peg someone's life to it.

I was raised by my parents to "Treat others as you expect them to treat you." The flip side to that, is expect others to treat me like I treat them. Unfortunately, most people dont live like that. I can't expect to not get a bloody nose if I go around punching people. Hell, if I go around punching people, I full deserve and expect to at some point get my ass kicked. And so should you doing the same.

If you have this idea that you can run up to someone, punch them in the nose, then back up and say I am stopping, and hitting me will be an act of battery, then you really deserve to get your ass kicked. I don't care what the law says.

Every decision has a cost/benefit. This attacker decided it was worth it. I assume he felt he had nothing to lose, or was an idiot. Either case, it ended as you should expect it.

It isn't like he stole a bag of Doritos from a convenience store. Think about the act of killing an innocent person. He was dumb enough to do it in front of other people, especially the other guys in his unit. I have no problem with what they did.

The moral of the story should be (1) Dont try to murder someone, and (2) dont try to murder a soldier in front of his unit. I can follow both of those no problem.

KTG17 wrote:

The moral of the story should be (1) Dont try to murder someone, and (2) dont try to murder a soldier in front of his unit. I can follow both of those no problem.

And yet you're completely fine with murder as retribution.

KTG17 wrote:
If you have this idea that you can run up to someone, punch them in the nose, then back up and say I am stopping, and hitting me will be an act of battery, then you really deserve to get your ass kicked. I don't care what the law says.

Let's say someone runs up to you and tries to punch you in the face. He hits, but your friend swings a crowbar at him and breaks both his legs before anything else happens. In what sort of twisted fantasy world do you live if you think it is alright to beat someone who is no threat to anyone any longer to death five minutes later because you're still pissed? Considering you're very eager to denounce others as lower than animals, being unable to control your own anger is a bit ironic.

KTG17 wrote:
Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.

And now we're on to "I'm right because I'm right!" as an argument. Great.

Just out of curiosity, if you are opposed to violence, how do you propose to stop that attacker from ever swinging the knife, or punching me?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am totally fine with an eye for an eye. It's the whole point of my case of treating others as I want to be treated. All of you are so focused on the soldiers retaliation but none of you have expressed any anger for the attacker.

I'm not opposed to violence in self-defense. Shooting an immobilized person lying on the ground in the head isn't self-defense, it's an execution.

I'd advocate in favour of policies that would help create a more equitable society where people aren't pushed to attacking soldiers with knives. That's not going to happen though; extremists on both sides will make sure that any negotiations in good faith are impossible.

Eye for an eye is why Israel and Palestine look like they do in the first place. You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.