I want to ask the honest question... how would you define a set of rules for civil behavior that would apply equally to people no matter what opinions they hold. In particular.
- Who should be allowed to post an dissenting opinion on which thread?
- In what circumstances is attacking the reasoning behind someone's argument acceptable?
- In what circumstances is attacking someone's intelligence or worth as a human being acceptable?
- Who decides which opinions are acceptable and which should not be expressed?
What other rules would you apply for civil discourse? I would feel much better if these rules applied equally to everyone rather than being based on your point of view or popularity.
Rubber bullets are supposed to be used on the lower extremities only,
No. Not a riot. It was a protest on his village's land.
And again, she is a minor. If it happened in the U.S., she would have went before a judge, and her parents would have been told where she is being held. Instead, her mother was detained for simply trying to find out where her daughter was being held. And as it is, she has been held for more than three weeks. So, no. Not like the U.S.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
I am unfamiliar with the policies for the use of rubber bullets
it seems unrealistic to expect police to aim with such precision.
Being a protest on village land does not mean it wasn't a riot.
Clearly the Israeli soldiers felt threatened enough to employ riot control devices.
And I've clearly shown you that the IDF needn't feel threatened before shooting unarmed, tied up, and blindfolded Palestinians.
You seem very passionate in your condemnation of Israelis, eh, Glenn?
With a rubber bullet, no less, you claim, eh?
Probably not as bad as do you about a jew shooting a Palestinian in the leg with a rubber bullet, eh?
It seems unrealistic to expect that the IDF would shoot a kid in the face in the first place.
And who do you imagine they were rioting against? Each other?
And I've clearly shown you that the IDF needn't feel threatened before shooting unarmed, tied up, and blindfolded Palestinians. Here, have a look for yourself:
If riot control devices are being fired into a crowd of rioters, it is very realistic to expect that people in the crowd might be struck in all sorts of random places.
Who knows. Does it matter?
That was a completely different incident. Do you have any evidence that the incident that you are speaking of was of a similar nature?
It was a demonstration. You keep talking past that point. It was on the land of the village where the people lived. Did you hear of any riots that had to be broken up and put down? Any evidence to that effect?
Yeah. The kid wasn't arrested for doing anything wrong, was he? No he wasn't. But he was shot in the face anyway;
much like the guy in the video was shot in the leg after being bound and blindfolded.
Was he a threat? Do you think?
Clearly whatever the crowd was doing, the Israeli soldiers felt threatened enough to employ riot control measures against them.
Riot control devices are used to push back against unruly mobs.
The Israeli soldiers must have deemed the crowd a threat since they employed riot-control devices against them.
So you haven't heard of any riot that had to be put down. Yeah, I couldn't find anything about it either.
Still waiting to hear any news about an unruly mob that prompted the IDF to shoot the kid in the face.
The point of showing you a video of the IDF shooting a tied and blindfolded guy in the leg was to show you that the IDF doesn't need to feel threatened to just let someone have it.
They were demonstrating in their own village.
I've heard that there was an event where Israeli soldiers felt threatened enough by a group that they employed riot control measures against them.
Clearly the soldiers felt threatened enough by the crowd that they felt they needed to employ riot control measures against them.
That was a different event. From your description, it sounds to me like this other crowd was not bound and blindfolded and already in custody.
That doesn't mean they were no threat to the Israeli soldiers.
Where and when was this? Cite your source.
Your evidence that the IDF felt threatened is the fact that they shot a kid in the face.
You're disregarding the fact that no IDF was harmed during this demonstration.
Because it was a different event does not take away from the fact that the bound and blindfolded man was shot in the leg despite not being a threat to the IDF.
I don't know what crowd you're referring to that was already in custody because the demonstrators were in their own village.
Again, they were demonstating in their own village. What was the IDF doing there in the first place?
You tell me. YOU are my source.
That is the purpose of riot control devices. They are meant to prevent security forces from being harmed.
But being a completely different event does mean that it has nothing to do with this other event that we're talking about.
It sounds to me like this crowd was NOT already in custody.
I don't know nearly enough details to answer this question.
I can speculate though that this took place in Area B, which is fully under the control of the Israeli military.