What rules would You set for civil behavior?

This thread was a failure

You are the person who is claiming that someone was shot in the face with a rubber bullet.

The fact that they opened fire is evidence that they felt threatened enough to open fire.

No. Completely unrelated events are completely unrelated.

I'll certainly take something seriously if it is not a fake.

But even if some of these examples turn out not to be Palestinian fakes, if the examples are completely unrelated to the event that we are talking about, then it is hard to see what the point is.

I expect that peaceful protests are legal,

but that soldiers will use force to protect themselves if they feel threatened.

No it's not.

There is the report of Mohammed Tamimi being shot in the face by the IDF, but there is no report of IDF soldiers being threatened.

Like I said before, you've made a rule in your mind that if the IDF uses force, then they had to have felt threatened.

But no report of that. Hmmm . . .

'Fraid not.

The video shows you that, contrary to that rule you made up concerning the IDF not using violent force unless threatened, the IDF is clearly shown using violent force against a bound and blindfolded man. Are you going to characterize the IDF as the kind of people who are threatened by bound and blindfolded people? I don't think so.

The kid who was shot in the face was not faking it. The man in the video who was shot while bound and blindfolded was not fake.

I've already told you that it destroys your default position that the IDF doesn't use force unless threatened.

Your failure to provide an account from any news source that proves that the IDF was threatened before shooting the kid in the face is the end of your point.

And as we've now seen, even when they don't feel threatened.

I'm guessing Oral isn't old enough to remember what actually happened at Kent State. Wow, I wonder what it must be like to be so totally cocooned.....but I don't wonder very long, sadly I deal in facts and information analysis. Now sure living in la la land would suit me.

Actually, a bunch of scared little boys in the National Guard to avoid the draft. Best thing to do is make them even more scared. That, and assume they hadn't been issued ammunition.

- 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?

Quote:

- In what circumstances is attacking someone's intelligence or worth as a human being acceptable?

That shouldn't happen. If it were to happen to you, I would suggest ignoring that person and move on.

Next thing ya know, you'll be denyin the stone-cold fact that every member of the IDF tortures and eats Palestinian children. They're jews, after all, caincha see?

I'm guessing Oral isn't old enough to remember what actually happened at Kent State.

Wow, I wonder what it must be like to be so totally cocooned.....but I don't wonder very long,

sadly I deal in facts and information analysis. Now sure living in la la land would suit me.

When someone keeps banging on about being a genius there's nothing wrong in pointing out that they're actually thick as ****.

Oh you shouldn't be so absent minded as to degrade everyone in the IDF for what some of them do.

It's too bad that some members of the IDF shot a bound and blindfolded guy in the leg at pointblank range. Makes the whole bunch of them look bad, eh?

And it's too bad that some members of the IDF shot a kid in the face.

But you should only condemn the cowards like the ones in the video and the one who shot a kid in the face.

glitterbag wrote:

I'm guessing Oral isn't old enough to remember what actually happened at Kent State.

I dressed up as a flower child and my history teacher started kicking my desk and yelling at me, “We got four of you at Kent State” (meaning hippies—he was in the National Guard).

I dressed up as a flower child and my history teacher started kicking my desk and yelling at me, “We got four of you at Kent State” (meaning hippies—he was in the National Guard).

No. They alone are responsible for their actions. It has nothing to do with the rest of the IDF.

It isn't reasonable to characterize a round fired into a crowd as being deliberately aimed at someone's face.

The fact that they used riot control devices to protect themselves does not make them cowards and does not make them deserving of condemnation.

Right. That the others stood there and watched their buddy shoot a tied and blindfolded guy is definitely no reflection on them.

Crowd? What crowd? Members of the IDF were inside a stone wall under construction that surrounds the home of the girl who might get 14 years in prison for slapping a soldier an hour after one of them shot her cousin in the face. The kid climbed up onto the wall to see if the soldiers were still there. So one of the soldiers shot him in the head from only a few meters distance.

This is yet another example of you creating your own narrative out of thin air in order to put lipstick on pigs.

Yeah it does.

They shot a kid in the head for showing his face.

Others shot a guy who was tied up and blindfolded.

It would appear that you've really lowered the bar when it comes to what constitutes cowardice.

The entire IDF was not standing there watching it happen.

You're the one who previously described this as Israeli soldiers firing on protesters. Don't blame me if you described it inaccurately.

Protecting yourself from a perceived threat does not make you a coward.

From your new description, they probably thought the kid was a suicide bomber come to kill them.

A completely unrelated incident.