IDF bans soldiers from shooting at stone throwers

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171731

They can no longer shoot at stone throwers, shoot in the air to discourage stone throwers, or even shoot at folks with Molotov-cocktails.

Now, I totally agree with not shooting stone throwers.

I partially agree with not shooting in the air, cause bullets eventually come down.

But not shooting at someone about to torch you or your vehicle with a gasoline bomb? that's a little nutty.

when did the IDF become soo......liberal? :)

[MG1962]

It does specify the solider must be in an armoured jeep for the molotov rule to be used

[Praktik]

Well I must say this is good news.

[bigjelmapro]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation. When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me. I'll spend my time in military prison thank you very much :)

Hopefully this would force the brass to issue more anti-riot weaponry with every unit.

[Thunder]

When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me. I'll spend my time in military prison thank you very much :)


well then, hopefully the Palestinians won't throw fire bombs at you, so that they give you an opportunity to kill them.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Great. Now the jihadists can use people with rocks to pin down Israeli troops, make them hide behind things knowing they can't shoot back, while the guys with real weapons move into flanking positions.

It's amazing that Israel does these things knowing that it makes their soldiers jobs more difficult and dangerous and that the haters will never give them credit for it.

[Redtail]

Great. Now the jihadists can use people with rocks to pin down Israeli troops, make them hide behind things knowing they can't shoot back, while the guys with real weapons move into flanking positions.

It's amazing that Israel does these things knowing that it makes their soldiers jobs more difficult and dangerous and that the haters will never give them credit for it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this rule will wind up being similar to the US (when I was in anyway) rule about not using the .50 cal machine gun to shoot people, only vehicles and equipment. "I wasn't shooting at the soldiers. I was shooting at the Jeep behind the soldiers" Or in this case, "I wasn't shooting at the rock throwers. I was shooting at the guys with the guns behind the rock throwers."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this rule will wind up being similar to the US (when I was in anyway) rule about not using the .50 cal machine gun to shoot people, only vehicles and equipment. "I wasn't shooting at the soldiers. I was shooting at the Jeep behind the soldiers" Or in this case, "I wasn't shooting at the rock throwers. I was shooting at the guys with the guns behind the rock throwers."

Did they actually tell you that?

I was told once that was just a military urban legend. Like the one about the soldier who was jailed after breaking his arm for "destruction of US government property".

[Achán hiNidráne]

Of course, there is no change in the IDF's long-standing policy of grinding Palestinians under the treads of their Merkevas for the crime of standing on their "promised land."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's amazing that Israel does these things knowing that it makes their soldiers jobs more difficult and dangerous and that the haters will never give them credit for it.Of course, there is no change in the IDF's long-standing policy of grinding Palestinians under the treads of their Merkevas for the crime of standing on their "promised land."

Inform Mr. Randi that I want my million in Canadian dollars.

[Thunder]

Great. Now the jihadists can use people with rocks to pin down Israeli troops, make them hide behind things knowing they can't shoot back, while the guys with real weapons move into flanking positions.


all Palestinian stone throwers...are "Jihadists"?

why don't you just call them "rock-throwing terrorists" while you are at it.

Here is a solution. Don't want Palestinians throwing rocks at you? Get the **** off their land and don't come back.

[tyr_13]

all Palestinian stone throwers...are "Jihadists"?

why don't you just call them "rock-throwing terrorists" while you are at it.

Here is a solution. Don't want Palestinians throwing rocks at you? Get the **** off their land and don't come back.

Hey parky, try reading again what was written.

"Jihadists can use stone throwers." That is in NO way saying all stone throwers are Jihadists.

Personally I think this is a great move by the IDF. However, I don't think they will get any credit for it. Goalpost moving is the default mechanism for Middle East politics.

[bigjelmapro]

Of course, there is no change in the IDF's long-standing policy of grinding Palestinians under the treads of their Merkevas for the crime of standing on their "promised land."
Don't know of many cases where merkavah tanks have indeed run over anybody...

[Architect]

I don't recall that we let our soldiers use real ammunition on unarmed stone throwers in NI (we did use plastic bullets, and not with great results) so heaven knows why Parky thinks the IDF require plaudits for something the rest of us twigged 40 years ago.

[foxholeatheist]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

In Iraq, rock throwers were shot. I don't know if they are throwing a grenade or a rock and in any case, I will err on the side of self preservation. Warning shots skip up and hit folks.

Bean bags and a Mossberg 500 would be good EOF in my opinion.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Don't know of many cases where merkavah tanks have indeed run over anybody...

Well, there was the case of the "Two-Dimensional Terrorist Tramp", Rachel Corrie.

But she was run down by a militarized D9 bulldozer (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D9R_rpg-armor06a.jpg) while guarding a Hamas weapons cache, not a Merkava.

[The Fool]

Well, there was the case of the "Two-Dimensional Terrorist Tramp", Rachel Corrie.

But she was run down by a militarized D9 bulldozer (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D9R_rpg-armor06a.jpg) while guarding a Hamas weapons cache, not a Merkava.
did that post require much courage? It would seem not.

at least you have set a certain goal for other pieces of human garbage to aspire to.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

did that post require much courage? It would seem not.

at least you have set a certain goal for other pieces of human garbage to aspire to.

I'd be just as cavalier if a KluKKer dropped a match accidentally lit his white dress on fire instead of his wooden cross.

If you've flown 6,000 miles to sign up with a group whose stated goal is the extermination of certain ethno-religious group, than I've pretty much lost any patience I might have for your antics.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks it's what's inside the counts. And I wasn't impressed with what Corrie had before it went squirting out her sides.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/rachel-corrie-flag-burner1.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/rachel-corrie-guns.jpg

[Thunder]

Well, there was the case of the "Two-Dimensional Terrorist Tramp", Rachel Corrie.


do you know what misogyny is?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

do you know what misogyny is?

You mean like when a member of Hamas beats his sister or daughter to death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) for the "crime" of being seen in public with a boy after 9 pm?

In the Gaza strip and the West bank it is believed that 3-4 women per month are killed in honour killings. Most of the honour killings are carried out by villagers and is extremly rare in the Palestinian cities and larger towns. The Palestinian authority rules with Jordanian law which gives men reduced punishment for killing a female relative if she has brought dishonour to the family. Due to Palestinian protests, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian authority promised to change the discrimatory law by the year 2010 but has not yet fulfilled his promise and the law is still valid.

[Thunder]

You mean like when a member of Hamas beats his sister or daughter to death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) for the "crime" of being seen in public with a boy after 9 pm?

forgive me for expecting more from folks who live in Western democracies.

[cornsail]

You mean like when a member of Hamas beats his sister or daughter to death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) for the "crime" of being seen in public with a boy after 9 pm?

"I may be misogynist, but at least I don't beat my sister to death"?

[Liszt]

I'm the kind of guy who thinks it's what's inside the counts. And I wasn't impressed with what Corrie had before it went squirting out her sides.



What's that, a Mormon joke?

You believe in "The Golden Plates" and the idea that Jesus went to America. So thankfully no one takes any notice of you. You are literally psychotic (as in you confuse reality with fantasy).

Also, the UK's private Eye magazine has been making fun of you for more than a year in their "from the message boards" section. UK circ 400,000. That's how many people laugh at you.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

forgive me for expecting more from folks who live in Western democracies."I may be misogynist, but at least I don't beat my sister to death"?

I gave a girlfriend a shoulder rub once, but no, I'm not a misogynist. :D

I used the word "tramp" because I needed something that started with the letter "T". Coming up with original lines to describe Corrie is somewhat difficult. I could have done "Slim-Fast Sufi Slut", but since it's descended from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's roots lie in wahabbi islam so "Sufi" would have been inaccurate. Which leads to "Weight Watching Wahabbi", but Corrie was just a straight up anti-semite, I've never heard that she converted to islam. and it's a bit of a stretch to go from being bulldozed to making a diet gag out of it. "Flattened Philistine" (from the biblical precursors to the palestinians) works well verbally, but it loses a bit when written down.... and she wasn't a palestinian.

I am reminded of the last words of the English thespian, Edmund Kean; "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What's that, a Mormon joke?

No, it's a dead terrorist joke.

You believe in "The Golden Plates" and the idea that Jesus went to America. So thankfully no one takes any notice of you. You are literally psychotic (as in you confuse reality with fantasy).

Also, the UK's private Eye magazine has been making fun of you for more than a year in their "from the message boards" section. UK circ 400,000. That's how many people laugh at you.

You know JREF has a separate religion section?

[Thunder]

I used the word "tramp" because I needed something that started with the letter "T". I could have done "Slim-Fast Sufi Slut", Which leads to "Weight Watching Wahabbi", but Corrie was just a straight up anti-semite,

prove it.

or do right-wing Israeli apologists believe that it is anti-Semitic to oppose the settlements?

[Liszt]

No, it's a dead terrorist joke.



You know JREF has a separate religion section?

Corrie was a terrorist now then? Actually, I was asking if it was a "joke" in the first place - because it is simply not funny.


Removed breaches of Rules 0, 11 and 12.

[Thunder]

Removed moderated content

eh....are you aware of how many Israeli Jews have brown or black skin? A good 2.5 million of them are from North Africa, the Middle East, and Ethiopia.

when it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, the "white supremacist" argument is one that just doesn't fly.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Corrie was a terrorist now then? Actually, I was asking if it was a "joke" in the first place - because it is simply not funny. Removed moderated content

I like chicken.

And fudge.

Preferably butterscotch flavor.

[Thunder]

still waiting for evidence that Rachel Corrie was an anti-Semite.

[Liszt]

eh....are you aware of how many Israeli Jews have brown or black skin? A good 2.5 million of them are from North Africa, the Middle East, and Ethiopia.

when it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, the "white supremacist" argument is one that just doesn't fly.

Yes, I know that. Although when I met 5 or 6 white Israelis taking a holiday, they were all very, very racist towards the non white Jews. Quite disturbing really. I overheard some terrible things and asked them to stop - because how was I supposed to know they were Jewish? I couldn't tell - but it shouldn't make a difference anyway. Beliveing in fairies doesn't make it ok to be racist. I just didn't like the endless "f****** n*****" comments that they were spewing.

[Thunder]

I just didn't like the endless "f****** n*****" comments that they were spewing.

nothing a good knuckle sandwhich can't cure.

I mean against them, not for you. I don't tolerate racism, especially when its overt.

[Redtail]

Did they actually tell you that?

I was told once that was just a military urban legend. Like the one about the soldier who was jailed after breaking his arm for "destruction of US government property".

Not only did they tell us that but during JRTC (A big war game in Ft Polk) a soldier got put on **** detail for a month because he tagged the "bad guys" with one.

Having said that, it never made much sense to me and considering this was before 2001 it's possible that it was a "screw with the newbs" joke that simply never got corrected.

[Thunder]

does anyone think an IDF soldier should be able to shoot a kid in the head, who is about to throw a rock at him?

[Nosi]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation. When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me. I'll spend my time in military prison thank you very much :)

Hopefully this would force the brass to issue more anti-riot weaponry with every unit.

What about packing a pellet gun?

Whoops, I thought this applied to the US Army, I didn't understand what IDF meant...:/

[quixotecoyote]

What about packing a pellet gun?

Perhaps they could issue packets of sternly worded letters.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

does anyone think an IDF soldier should be able to shoot a kid in the head, who is about to throw a rock at him?

If you're an israeli soldier and you see a kid with his face covered by a kafiyeh(sp?) about to throw "something" at you, you have about zero-point-jack seconds to determine that it's a rock or a hand grenade.

[Thunder]

If you're an israeli soldier and you see a kid with his face covered by a kafiyeh(sp?) about to throw "something" at you, you have about zero-point-jack seconds to determine that it's a rock or a hand grenade.

breaks my heart. maybe the IDF should get the **** out of Palestinian towns and cities. That way, they won't have stuff thrown at them.

[tyr_13]

breaks my heart. maybe the IDF should get the **** out of Palestinian towns and cities. That way, they won't have stuff thrown at them.

And if those women didn't want stoned to death, why did they go and get raped?

[quarky]

Sigh.

Why can't the Jews just be happy running the world?

[The Fool]

Sigh.

Why can't the Jews just be happy running the world?
you believe Jews run the world? Why?

[The Fool]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation. When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me. I'll spend my time in military prison thank you very much :)

Hopefully this would force the brass to issue more anti-riot weaponry with every unit.
do you issue your CO with a list of regulations you could care less about before you commence each period of duty?

After all, he needs to know which orders you are intending to ignore doesn't he?

[Thunder]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation. When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me.

so, you admit that you plan on becoming a war criminal?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation. When I'm going to do my reserve duty this summer, I'll shoot whoever tries to throw a molotov at me. I'll spend my time in military prison thank you very much :)

Hopefully this would force the brass to issue more anti-riot weaponry with every unit.

How good a shot are you?

If you can pull it off, shoot the molotov, not the agressor. The burning rag ignites the gasoline, it falls down on himself, he effectively solves his own problem while you get off scott free. :D

[Thunder]

take a real man to shoot a child in the head.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

do you issue your CO with a list of regulations you could care less about before you commence each period of duty?

After all, he needs to know which orders you are intending to ignore doesn't he?so, you admit that you plan on becoming a war criminal?

When you tell someone with a straight face that you expect them to be burned alive rather than act in their own defense, you have lost the argument.

[quarky]

you believe Jews run the world? Why?

Nah. Just sarcasm.

Oddly enough, I think I run the world.

[The Fool]

When you tell someone with a straight face that you expect them to be burned alive rather than act in their own defense, you have lost the argument.
Well, that may be relevant if what you are rambling on about was what I said.


simple question for you (simple may work)...should IDF officers have an expectation that thier troops will obey orders? Or just the ones they like?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, that may be relevant if what you are rambling on about was what I said.


simple question for you (simple may work)...should IDF officers have an expectation that thier troops will obey orders? Or just the ones they like?

Actually, given the scenario that Bigjamelpro described, the real question is "Should jews be be burned alive, or is it ok to defend themselves?"

[The Fool]

Actually, given the scenario that Bigjamelpro described, the real question is "Should jews be be burned alive, or is it ok to defend themselves?"
dammit, I tried my best to make the question as simple as possible....was it still too complex? obvously things are a lot more comfortable in fantasy land.

ok, here is another attempt to make it simple enough for comprehension.

Should Bigjel obey the rules of engagement he is given? (ignoring the fantasy scenarios he makes up and you cheer along with).....see nobody, except in your fantasy land, is telling anyone they have to accept being burned to death and not defend themselves.

I find it rather amazing that people who claim to be serving members of a military want to ignore regs they don't agree with. If I was the IDF i would root out this mutinous element.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So should jews be burned alive or not?

A yes or no will suffice.

[Thunder]

So should jews be burned alive or not?


:D:p:D:p:D

forgive me for laughing. its just such a silly question.

we are talking about soldiers on duty, in a conflict zone. not innocent civilians walking to the playground.

why not just compare IDF troops facing Palestinian youth with Molotov cocktails, to innocent Jews in Auschwitz facing Zyklon B and the furnaces?

[The Fool]

So should jews be burned alive or not?

A yes or no will suffice.
no..

your turn.

should bigjell obey orders?


somehow I am not expecting much...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

dammit, I tried my best to make the question as simple as possible....was it still too complex? obvously things are a lot more comfortable in fantasy land.

ok, here is another attempt to make it simple enough for comprehension.

Should Bigjel obey the rules of engagement he is given? (ignoring the fantasy scenarios he makes up and you cheer along with).....see nobody, except in your fantasy land, is telling anyone they have to accept being burned to death and not defend themselves.

I find it rather amazing that people who claim to be serving members of a military want to ignore regs they don't agree with. If I was the IDF i would root out this mutinous element.

After the double barrel blast you unloaded on me for insulting the sanctity of Saint Rachel De'Pancake, for you to then insist with apparent seriousness that someone you don't like must allow a hostile aggressor to pour flaming gasoline over him in order to earn your approval is probably one of the most staggering displays of hypocrisy and paint peeling hatred I think I have ever seen.

[Thunder]

No IDF soldiers would face the possibility of burning alive, if they got the hell out of Palestinian towns and cities.

"why do they keep attacking me? all i did was invade their land."

[The Fool]

After the double barrel blast you unloaded on me for insulting the sanctity of Saint Rachel De'Pancake, for you to then insist with apparent seriousness that someone you don't like must allow a hostile aggressor to pour flaming gasoline over him in order to earn your approval is probably one of the most staggering displays of hypocrisy and paint peeling hatred I think I have ever seen.

well, I wasn't expecting much and you certainly lived up to my expectation... you apparently lack the courage to answer. Thats your choice. you also choose to lie as I have never suggested anyone must allow someone to pour flaming gasoline over anyone....do you really need to make stuff up?

Actually its not fair to say you completely lack any courage....I see you still have the courage to make jokes at the death of a young woman... Brave little man indeed.



want one last try? Should Bigjell obey orders? Or should be be able to simply ignore orders he doesn't like?

[Thunder]

if its ok to flatten American peace activists, then it is ok to burn Jews.

how's this for a compromise?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

if its ok to flatten American peace activists, then it is ok to burn Jews.

how's this for a compromise?

Good thing no peace activists were flattened then.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/rachel-corrie-guns.jpg

[The Fool]

Good thing no peace activists were flattened then.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/rachel-corrie-guns.jpg
edit to remove post as its become quite clear sword-of-truth, despite the brave name....lacks the courage to address a simple question.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No IDF soldiers would face the possibility of burning alive, if they got the hell out of Palestinian towns and cities.

"why do they keep attacking me? all i did was win the war when they invaded my land."

Adjusted for proper historical accuracy.

[Captain.Sassy]

Sword of Truth:
Are you for real or are you just make believe like a platypus?

[Thunder]

Adjusted for proper historical accuracy.

I didn't know that the Palestinians invaded anyone.

so much for "historical accuracy", eh Sword?

[Liszt]

After the double barrel blast you unloaded on me for insulting the sanctity of Saint Rachel De'Pancake, for you to then insist with apparent seriousness that someone you don't like must allow a hostile aggressor to pour flaming gasoline over him in order to earn your approval is probably one of the most staggering displays of hypocrisy and paint peeling hatred I think I have ever seen.

SoT may be completely detached from reality, but he does have a pretty good way with words.

[Puppycow]

I was told once that was just a military urban legend. Like the one about the soldier who was jailed after breaking his arm for "destruction of US government property".

Well there is a rule against breaking your arm on purpose as a way to shirk duty. It's called malingering.

[bigjelmapro]

"Slim-Fast Sufi Slut"
:D

[bigjelmapro]

When you tell someone with a straight face that you expect them to be burned alive rather than act in their own defense, you have lost the argument.
Liberals don't understand the concept of self-preservation...

[Thunder]

Liberals don't understand the concept of self-preservation...

shooting a 12 year old with a rock..in the head= self-preservation?

wow, the Israelis sure are tough.

[quixotecoyote]

shooting a 12 year old with a rock..in the head= self-preservation?

When you're dealing with a fanatical death cult that frequently arms children with real weapons indistinguishable from rocks within the relevant time frame (when they aren't using them as human shields) - yes.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

shooting a 12 year old with a rock..in the head= self-preservation?

wow, the Israelis sure are tough.

Why are you deliberately leaving out the part where he has a molotov cocktail?

[The Fool]

Liberals don't understand the concept of self-preservation...


It appears that you don't understand the concept of Military discipline. You are sent by your commanders to do a job, not look after number 1.

[Thunder]

Why are you deliberately leaving out the part where he has a molotov cocktail?

why are you conveniently forgetting that i have already said, i think IDF troops should be allowed to shoot anyone with a firebomb?

"But not shooting at someone about to torch you or your vehicle with a gasoline bomb? that's a little nutty."

[Thunder]

but Corrie was just a straight up anti-semite,

still waiting for evidence for this. or should we just assume that anyone who dares to oppose the Israeli occupation of the WB...is an anti-Semite?

[The Fool]

When you're dealing with a fanatical death cult that frequently arms children with real weapons indistinguishable from rocks within the relevant time frame (when they aren't using them as human shields) - yes.
that is correct....so when you are not dealing with a fanatical death cult and its just a mob of rock throwing children...what then? Allow the clowns among the IDF that feel they have the right to execute on suspicion free reign?


you do understand the reason behind these changes to the IDF rules?

[quixotecoyote]

that is correct....so when you are not dealing with a fanatical death cult ...what then?

Then you tell them to turn around, because they were supposed to be operating in the West Bank.

[The Fool]

Then you tell them to turn around, because they were supposed to be operating in the West Bank.
Then ....ouch, a rock bounces of your noggin. Causing some people such outrage they need to shoot people :)

Has anyone considered just throwing the rocks back?

[quixotecoyote]

Then ....ouch, a rock bounces of your noggin. Causing some people such outrage they need to shoot people :)

Has anyone considered just throwing the rocks back?

They've started trying that in Afghanistan, but they haven't had consistent results yet.:)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/soldier-picks-up-taliban-grenade-and-throws-it-back/story-e6frfkui-1225838562881

[Thunder]

Has anyone considered just throwing the rocks back?

Israel is historically and categorically against fare-fights.

[foxholeatheist]

does anyone think an IDF soldier should be able to shoot a kid in the head, who is about to throw a rock at him?

In the context of the nature of the conflict: It depends. Those same kids will sometimes throw and no-**** bomb or grenade. If I have to choose my life over theirs, I choose mine. If I can PID the target throwing an explosive he may get me but they'll find my body in the biggest pile of spent brass.

No macho-ism, no ********. Nothing about being "a man". It's about war and it's about self preservation. There's nothing glamorous or heroic about it. And everyday the IDF and members of the US Military make those decisions. It's an easy ethical conclusion you reach but that may change when you lose a few buddies to a little bit of treachery.

[The Fool]

In the context of the nature of the conflict: It depends. Those same kids will sometimes throw and no-**** bomb or grenade. If I have to choose my life over theirs, I choose mine. If I can PID the target throwing an explosive he may get me but they'll find my body in the biggest pile of spent brass.

No macho-ism, no ********. Nothing about being "a man". It's about war and it's about self preservation. There's nothing glamorous or heroic about it. And everyday the IDF and members of the US Military make those decisions. It's an easy ethical conclusion you reach but that may change when you lose a few buddies to a little bit of treachery.

yes...yes....I realise they are not easy decisions.

In the end, as a serving soldier what is your top priority, Your mission or self preservation? I put it to you that its your mission.....You are required to put yourself at risk, thats the job.

[NoZed Avenger]

Then ....ouch, a rock bounces of your noggin. Causing some people such outrage they need to shoot people :)


I am guessing there are no volunteers, however, for anyone to demonstrate just how little damage bouncing rocks off heads actually causes.

[NoZed Avenger]

"There are many unmarried marriage counselors. . . ."

- Peppermint Patty

[bigjelmapro]

Why are you deliberately leaving out the part where he has a molotov cocktail?
He's intentionally trying to make a firebomb seem innocuous, nothing more.

[cornsail]

Then you tell them to turn around, because they were supposed to be operating in the West Bank.

Palestinian kids throw rocks all the time. They aren't all in death cults.

And the ratio of rocks to more dangerous weapons is heavily weighted toward rocks. So if you shoot first and think later, that's a lot of dead rock throwing kids for the sake of killing one with a cocktail.

[quixotecoyote]

Palestinian kids throw rocks all the time. They aren't all in death cults.

Good thing I didn't say they were then, huh?

[cornsail]

What did you mean by that then? I figured it might have been a joke, but I wasn't sure.

[Thunder]

but Corrie was just a straight up anti-semite,

evidence....please.

[quixotecoyote]

What did you mean by that then? I figured it might have been a joke, but I wasn't sure.

What I meant was that when you're operating in a region where your enemies use child soldiers and child suicide bombers, you can't assume that the children attacking you are just using rocks.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Israel All military forces everywhere is historically and categorically against fair-fights.

Corrected free of charge.

Seriously, Parky. Your comment betrays an ignorance of military theory and doctrine. If you want 20 guys with rifles to face 20 other guys with rifles, then you're running a Battlefield/Counterstrike/Call of Duty server, multiplayer video games which have more in common with playing hockey than fighting a war. But if you want 20 guys with rifles to face 20 guys with rifles, 2 tanks and a helicopter gunship and you want the other guys to not know about the tanks and chopper until it's too late, then you're a military leader

In fact, if you want large scale carnage and destruction, make both sides as evenly matched as possible. If you had a time machine and a Trident missile submarine, you could go back to the start of WW2 and hit the five biggest cities in Japan and Germany (minus Tokyo and Berlin, you want someone in charge who can make the surrender decision for the whole country). Would that have been "fair"? No. You'd have killed ten million people in 30 minutes... which would be 50 million less than those who were killed in WW2 in real life.

[Skeptic]

In the context of the nature of the conflict: It depends. Those same kids will sometimes throw and no-**** bomb or grenade. If I have to choose my life over theirs, I choose mine. If I can PID the target throwing an explosive he may get me but they'll find my body in the biggest pile of spent brass.

There you go again, posting obvious facts. What the hell do YOU know about war, compared to the folks who read ALL THE RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS?!

[Skeptic]

I wonder if the same people here who think Israel is "against fair fights" think that the Allies in WWII should have sent about 30%-40% of their war productions to Japan and Germany to even out the grossly unfair resource disparity.

[Skeptic]

Palestinian kids throw rocks all the time. They aren't all in death cults.

True, but Hamas and Fatah make sure as many as possible are. Fatah's "Seasame street" version had kids telling each other they want to grow up to be Shahids [suicide bombers], while Hamas had even worse shows.

Fatah and Hamas made the cynical calculations that after they brainwash their children to become child soldiers, the usual useful idiots will blame the Israelies for fighting children, not Hamas and Fatah for sending them to fight.

They were right.

[Skeptic]

When you're dealing with a fanatical death cult that frequently arms children with real weapons indistinguishable from rocks within the relevant time frame (when they aren't using them as human shields) - yes.

Thank you,

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5020/obviousd.jpg

But yes. Sometimes the obvious DOES need to be said.

[Thunder]

I wonder if the same people here who think Israel is "against fair fights" think that the Allies in WWII should have sent about 30%-40% of their war productions to Japan and Germany to even out the grossly unfair resource disparity.

Israel controls Gaza. It is under their ultimate rule and sovereignity. Therefore, it is their responsibility to make sure the people have their basic needs.

Don't want this kind of responsibility? then declare ALL of Gaza, including its water, airspace, and coastline, no longer under the sovereignity of the State of Israel. after that, Israel will no longer be under ANY obligation, to feed/clothe/supply the people of Gaza. Egypt can do it.

[quixotecoyote]

Israel controls Gaza. It is under their ultimate rule and sovereignity. Therefore, it is their responsibility to make sure the people have their basic needs.

Don't want this kind of responsibility? then declare ALL of Gaza, including its water, airspace, and coastline, no longer under the sovereignity of the State of Israel. after that, Israel will no longer be under ANY obligation, to feed/clothe/supply the people of Gaza. Egypt can do it.
:wackywacko:

[Skeptic]

Then declare ALL of Gaza, including its water, airspace, and coastline, no longer under the Soverenigty of the state of Israel

As long as Israel was in Gaza, the useful idiots claimed that if only Israel left Gaza, they will no longer accuse it of occupation.

Now that Israel left Gaza, suddenly this isn't enough: Israel must also not, under any circumstances, blockade a genocidal thugocracy bent on its destruction -- that, too, is suddenly "occupation".

Long experience shows that if Israel does just what parky recommends here, this won't matter to the useful idiots: there will always be something else -- say, not letting Gazans freely enter Israel, or monitoring Hamas radio communications to try and prevent attacks -- that would suddenly count as "occupation" that Israel "must stop", and no mention will be made of all previous Israeli concessions ever again.

So what's the point? As long as Israel exists, it will be called "occupying" by the useful idiots no matter what it does. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, in that case.

[cornsail]

What I meant was that when you're operating in a region where your enemies use child soldiers and child suicide bombers, you can't assume that the children attacking you are just using rocks.

The question was "what if the children are throwing rocks and aren't in a death cult?" and your response was "then you must not be in the west bank" (both quotes paraphrases). That implies it's impossible to encounter children throwing rocks in the West Bank who aren't in a "death cult".

[Skeptic]

The point is, that if those children not in the death cult are confused with those children in the death cult who do throw Molotov cocktails, the blame rests on those who raise children to join the death cult, not on those who confuse the two.

[DC]

The point is, that if those children not in the death cult are confused with those children in the death cult who do throw Molotov cocktails, the blame rests on those who raise children to join the death cult, not on those who confuse the two.

and in Israel you have to go to the Army.
another death cult, just more accepted..

[Thunder]

if a 5 year old is about to toss a molotov cocktail at you, by all means....blow him away.

that is my humble opinion. tossing a firebomb is an act of attempted murder.

[Thunder]

Now that Israel left Gaza, suddenly this isn't enough: Israel must also not, under any circumstances, blockade a genocidal thugocracy bent on its destruction -- that, too, is suddenly "occupation".

the Israeli military may have evacuated from Gaza. but the gaza strip is still under Israeli sovereignity. they still control its water, its airspace, its coast line. they still bear responsibility if there is a natural disaster.

until Gaza is declared independent of Israeli legal control, it is Israeli ruled.

[bigjelmapro]

and in Israel you have to go to the Army.
another death cult, just more accepted..
:D Not a death cult, and speaking from experience, you liberal loony toon.

[Skeptic]

and in Israel you have to go to the Army.
another death cult, just more accepted..

I don't believe you really can't see the difference between having to go into the army at 18 and having five-year-olds be told that their goal in life is to blow themselves up.

If you consider the armed forces a "death cult", clearly you know little about what army life is really like.

You've never served, now have you?

[Skeptic]

:D Not a death cult, and speaking from experience, you liberal loony toon.

You know, you'd think that, if it were a death cult, they wouldn't bother so much with all the drive-you-up-the-walls safety regulations on guard duty, health codes in KP duty, and the rest of that BS...

[quixotecoyote]

The question was "what if the children are throwing rocks and aren't in a death cult?" and your response was "then you must not be in the west bank" (both quotes paraphrases). That implies it's impossible to encounter children throwing rocks in the West Bank who aren't in a "death cult".

What skeptic said.

Plus, you phrased it "what if you aren't dealing with a death cult..."

When you're operating in the West Bank, you're dealing with the PLA, and to a lesser extent Hamas, who do use child soldiers and child bombers.

So when you're attacked by a mob of rock throwing kids, you're still dealing with the PLA in that you have to expect them to send in a kid with a grenade or a bomb. That's what they do.

Yeah it's sad. But you're dealing with people who train kids to be soldiers and bombers and they spoil it for the people who only raise kids to throw rocks at soldiers.

[doobiedoright]

Israel is historically and categorically against fare-fights.

There is no such thing as a fair fight in war.
Over power you enemy with superior fire power!
Anything else is a losing proposition!

[The Fool]

What skeptic said.

Plus, you phrased it "what if you aren't dealing with a death cult..."

When you're operating in the West Bank, you're dealing with the PLA, and to a lesser extent Hamas, who do use child soldiers and child bombers.

So when you're attacked by a mob of rock throwing kids, you're still dealing with the PLA in that you have to expect them to send in a kid with a grenade or a bomb. That's what they do.

Yeah it's sad. But you're dealing with people who train kids to be soldiers and bombers and they spoil it for the people who only raise kids to throw rocks at soldiers.
Thats the point of the IDF regulation changes. To take in to account people such as yourself who are unable or unwilling to make a distinction.

[tyr_13]

Thats the point of the IDF regulation changes. To take in to account people such as yourself who are unable or unwilling to make a distinction.

So you are saying Israel did something right correct?

[The Fool]

So you are saying Israel did something right correct?
absolutely.....

[Tricky]

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171731

They can no longer shoot at stone throwers, shoot in the air to discourage stone throwers, or even shoot at folks with Molotov-cocktails.

Now, I totally agree with not shooting stone throwers.

I partially agree with not shooting in the air, cause bullets eventually come down.

But not shooting at someone about to torch you or your vehicle with a gasoline bomb? that's a little nutty.

when did the IDF become soo......liberal? :)
Haven't these guys ever heard of rubber bullets? Minimal damage, but looks just as scary. Yeah, somebody could get seriously hurt, even killed, but it is orders of magnitude less likely.

[Skeptic]

Not only have we heard of rubber bullets, we used them. Needless to say, it was declared horribly inhuman and evil by the usual idiots, complete with pictures of poor, oppressed Palestinians wounded by the bullets, etc.

[bigjelmapro]

Haven't these guys ever heard of rubber bullets? Minimal damage, but looks just as scary. Yeah, somebody could get seriously hurt, even killed, but it is orders of magnitude less likely.
Yes, rubber bullets are used, but more so anti-riot gear which uses attachments to m-16's which fire little sand bags and rubber pellets.

[DC]

I don't believe you really can't see the difference between having to go into the army at 18 and having five-year-olds be told that their goal in life is to blow themselves up.

If you consider the armed forces a "death cult", clearly you know little about what army life is really like.

You've never served, now have you?

Yes i am proud to not have served in the Army. I do something far more usefull for my country.

and even if i would have served in Switzerland, our Cannabis camps cannot realy be compared to the Israeli Army.

[bigjelmapro]

:D Yep. The Swiss have done oodles in past wars, or did they? Other than provide Swiss army knives, have the Swiss ever done much of anything besides claim neutrality?

http://to55er.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wenger_giant_swiss_army_knife_2.jpg

[DC]

:D Yep. The Swiss have done oodles in past wars, or did they? Other than provide Swiss army knives, have the Swiss ever done much of anything besides claim neutrality?

http://to55er.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wenger_giant_swiss_army_knife_2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Jean_Henri_Dunant.jpg

he didnt kill enough to get your attention propably.

and when i compare Israel and Switzerland, im very happy we declared Neutrality. I know, for warlovers like you it is cowardise.

[funk de fino]

When I was in the UK forces we were not permitted to shoot for petrol bombs under the vast majority of circumstances. You could not shoot someone for throwing stones and you could only shoot if your life was at threat at that time. If the danger had passed you could not shoot. If the guy was running away after killing your friend and had dropped his weapon you could not shoot.

Rules of engagement. They changed if you went into a war theatre but not by much. Challenges had to be made. You were also always presumed guilty until you could prove yourself innocent evertime you fired your weapon.

It was a little disconcerting but I believe that is why we have less blue on blue in war situations than some forces do.

[bigjelmapro]

he didnt kill enough to get your attention propably.

and when i compare Israel and Switzerland, im very happy we declared Neutrality. I know, for warlovers like you it is cowardise.
Yikes, another failed attempt at categorizing. I knew you would bring up an ancient, irrelevant example.

Mind you, Israel practices many of the guidelines proposed by the IRC, including the medical treatment of its enemies.

I'm sure the relevance of neutrality applies to a country that's directly under attack. Right.

You fail in every attempt. Thanks for the entertainment though :p

[bigjelmapro]

When I was in the UK forces we were not permitted to shoot for petrol bombs under the vast majority of circumstances. You could not shoot someone for throwing stones and you could only shoot if your life was at threat at that time. If the danger had passed you could not shoot. If the guy was running away after killing your friend and had dropped his weapon you could not shoot.
Maybe you should re-read this article. It refers to shooting in the air if faced with stone throwers, which included rubber bullets. And no, the general practice in the IDF is not to shoot at stone throwers, never was, never will be.

In the rules of engagment, if you're not protected, you are permitted to shoot at someone if they throw or are in the process of throwing a petrol bomb in your direction.

[Skeptic]

Yes i am proud to not have served in the Army.

I'm not surprised.

[sadhatter]

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

In Iraq, rock throwers were shot. I don't know if they are throwing a grenade or a rock and in any case, I will err on the side of self preservation. Warning shots skip up and hit folks.

Bean bags and a Mossberg 500 would be good EOF in my opinion.

Okay, i was waiting for someone with experience to chime in.

How hard is it going to be to toss an explosive device inside something that looks like a rock? Using a couple of hollowed out rock shaped speakers, and some chemicals i am sure are in abundant supply in iraq, i could make one, how long before someone that has actual real world experience making bombs to kill people realizes this.

My vote is, if your stupid enough to throw a rock at someone with a gun, you getting killed is natural selection.

[Thunder]

a rock is a weapon of mass destruction. frequently used by terrorists to try to kill as many Jews possible.

anyone who attempts to assault one of God's Chosen People, with a stone, deserves the fires of hell.

[tyr_13]

Haven't these guys ever heard of rubber bullets? Minimal damage, but looks just as scary. Yeah, somebody could get seriously hurt, even killed, but it is orders of magnitude less likely.

There are more problems with this as well though. Which mag do you keep ready in gun? Not that it is insurmountable. One mag dark red, the other black and taped together would work ok. Still, it seems like something you'd think they would look into.

Okay, i was waiting for someone with experience to chime in.

How hard is it going to be to toss an explosive device inside something that looks like a rock? Using a couple of hollowed out rock shaped speakers, and some chemicals i am sure are in abundant supply in iraq, i could make one, how long before someone that has actual real world experience making bombs to kill people realizes this.

My vote is, if your stupid enough to throw a rock at someone with a gun, you getting killed is natural selection.

Even here in the US, if I start throwing stones at someone with a gun I would fully expect to be shot.


-------------------------------------------


Politically I still say this is a good move. It might get IDF soldiers killed of course, but it shows that they are willing to be the 'bigger man'. If it were anywhere else it might be praised. But nothing is ever good enough for anti-Israel groups. I'm not saying that this is enough on Israel's part, but give credit when they do something right. Otherwise, what point is there for them to do something right? This works both ways of course.

[funk de fino]

Maybe you should re-read this article. It refers to shooting in the air if faced with stone throwers, which included rubber bullets. And no, the general practice in the IDF is not to shoot at stone throwers, never was, never will be.

Maybe you should reread my post and retract your claws. I was making a comparison I was not accusing anyone of anything.

In the rules of engagment, if you're not protected, you are permitted to shoot at someone if they throw or are in the process of throwing a petrol bomb in your direction.

And you know the UK forces rules of engagment as they were during my 12 years of service better than me do you? I'll answer that for you. No.

Simmer down son.

[funk de fino]

Even here in the US, if I start throwing stones at someone with a gun I would fully expect to be shot.

In Texas all you have to do is ask for directions.

[Skeptic]

Switzerland (I mean the government, not necessarily the people) isn't neutral. It's pro-dictatorship, as Asaf Sagiv, in an excellent article ("The Silence of the Cookoos" in Azure magazine, unfortunately only in Hebrew) points out.

A few recent examples:

1). Hosting the "Durban II" so-called "anti-racism" conference farce, where the holocaust-denying, genocide-promoting Ahmadejinad gave his usual "death to the Jews" speech as the keynote address.

2). Switzerland being the only western country to not only not go out of the conference hall in protest, and its president warmly received Ahmadejinad afterward and meet with him for hours.

3). Being the only western nation to welcome Hamas leaders into the country.

4). Jean Zigler (phonetic spelling from the Hebrew), the Swiss "human rights" activist, is one of the most hate-filled critics of Israel in Europe. About his connection to reality it's enough to note he is one of those who established, as well as the winners, of the human rights award named after... Quaddaffi, the Libyan dictator.

5). Generally acting like a rug-mat to every dictatorial country which threatens it. Unlike such folks as Hamas leaders and Ahmadejinad, the Swiss government refused to meet the Dali Lama officially when he visited the country last August. (The Chinese threatened them). Similarly, when Quaddafi's son was arrested for beating up two servants, not only was he quickly released after Quaddaffi threatened Switzerland and stopped oil exports to it, but the Swiss president went to Libya to offer a groveling apology.

So, yes, I'd say that nowadays Swiss "neutrality" is more a combination of cowardice and self-interest than having anything to do with a principled stance.

[Thunder]

Excuse me guys, but did not God command us to kill all of the generations of Amelek?

well...guess who the Palestinians are!!!

[tyr_13]

Excuse me guys, but did not God command us to kill all of the generations of Amelek?

well...guess who the Palestinians are!!!

Non sequiter much?

[Scootch]

In Texas all you have to do is ask for directions.

And in some parts just looking lost can get you winged.

[tyr_13]

In Texas all you have to do is ask for directions.

I can't believe that no one has asked me about my stone throwing gun yet.

[bigjelmapro]

Maybe you should reread my post and retract your claws. I was making a comparison I was not accusing anyone of anything.

It was in response to the shooting at stonethrowers bit.


And you know the UK forces rules of engagment as they were during my 12 years of service better than me do you? I'll answer that for you. No.

Simmer down son.
Ah the paternalism. So we do agree that if one's life is threatened, one can shoot at those doing the threatening.

[DC]

Switzerland (I mean the government, not necessarily the people) isn't neutral. It's pro-dictatorship, as Asaf Sagiv, in an excellent article ("The Silence of the Cookoos" in Azure magazine, unfortunately only in Hebrew) points out.

A few recent examples:

1). Hosting the "Durban II" so-called "anti-racism" conference farce, where the holocaust-denying, genocide-promoting Ahmadejinad gave his usual "death to the Jews" speech as the keynote address.

2). Switzerland being the only western country to not only not go out of the conference hall in protest, and its president warmly received Ahmadejinad afterward and meet with him for hours.

3). Being the only western nation to welcome Hamas leaders into the country.

4). Jean Zigler (phonetic spelling from the Hebrew), the Swiss "human rights" activist, is one of the most hate-filled critics of Israel in Europe. About his connection to reality it's enough to note he is one of those who established, as well as the winners, of the human rights award named after... Quaddaffi, the Libyan dictator.

5). Generally acting like a rug-mat to every dictatorial country which threatens it. Unlike such folks as Hamas leaders and Ahmadejinad, the Swiss government refused to meet the Dali Lama officially when he visited the country last August. (The Chinese threatened them). Similarly, when Quaddafi's son was arrested for beating up two servants, not only was he quickly released after Quaddaffi threatened Switzerland and stopped oil exports to it, but the Swiss president went to Libya to offer a groveling apology.

So, yes, I'd say that nowadays Swiss "neutrality" is more a combination of cowardice and self-interest than having anything to do with a principled stance.

in other words, you have not the slightest idea what Neutrality means.

[DC]

Yikes, another failed attempt at categorizing. I knew you would bring up an ancient, irrelevant example.

Mind you, Israel practices many of the guidelines proposed by the IRC, including the medical treatment of its enemies.

I'm sure the relevance of neutrality applies to a country that's directly under attack. Right.

You fail in every attempt. Thanks for the entertainment though :p

Irrelevant........ well that is entertainment pure.

cool, you follow MANY guidlines... many.... why not all?

you know what, you are irrelevatn for me. have a nice live. bye bye

[bigjelmapro]

And I just find you comical. Ta ta.

[funk de fino]

Ah the paternalism. So we do agree that if one's life is threatened, one can shoot at those doing the threatening.

That was incorrect during my service for petrol bomb situations. Unlucky for us.

[bigjelmapro]

Then the terms of engagement were revised and not what they should've been.

[a_unique_person]

Pfft. Could care less about this regulation.

I get the feeling you're not the only member of the IDF who disregards the rules of engagment.

[Darth Rotor]

in other words, you have not the slightest idea what Neutrality means.
You might find that that it means demanding others do the dirty work.

Depends on the scenario.

DR

[DC]

You might find that that it means demanding others do the dirty work.

Depends on the scenario.

DR

i just pointed out that he doesnt understand neutrality, judged on the examples he brought up.

i dint rate it to bee good or bad, or if i see us as still neutral.

[Skeptic]

As the old joke has it, Switzerland is apparently neutral in the sense of neither "endorsing good" nor "renouncing evil".

[bigjelmapro]

I get the feeling you're not the only member of the IDF who disregards the rules of engagment.
Bit logical isn't it? If faced with an imminent threat of being killed or the possibility of suffering 3rd degree burns, one would rather serve a bit of prison time. Seriously doubt that this is restricted to the IDF, sorry to burst your bubble...

[DC]

As the old joke has it, Switzerland is apparently neutral in the sense of neither "endorsing good" nor "renouncing evil".

and this is clearly wrong, atleast the not endorsing good part.

not enough renouncing evil, well yes that could be said.

[The Fool]

Bit logical isn't it? If faced with an imminent threat of being killed or the possibility of suffering 3rd degree burns, one would rather serve a bit of prison time. Seriously doubt that this is restricted to the IDF, sorry to burst your bubble...
Lol...our resident goalpost shifter now decides its "imminent threat of being killed or the possibility of suffering 3rd degree burns"... of course the new regulations would be happy for him to defend himself with deadly force under those circumstances.

once again I have to ask have you notified the IDF of your lack of commitment to the rules of engagement. I think its important that if you are not intending to follow orders you should announce this...what do you think?

[funk de fino]

Then the terms of engagement were revised and not what they should've been.

So yes, you were wrong. That figures. As far as I know the rules of engagement stand as they were for petrol bombs in the UK. If you really do not know anything about the UK rules of engaegment it might be better to stop havering.

[bigjelmapro]

So yes, you were wrong. That figures. As far as I know the rules of engagement stand as they were for petrol bombs in the UK. If you really do not know anything about the UK rules of engaegment it might be better to stop havering.
Wrong on what? A response to your statement regarding your tour of duty regarding your rules of engagement? The 2 cents you threw in regarding your tour of duty I interpreted as a judgement on the IDF's ROE. So not really wrong on anything and didn't try to rewrite the UK's ROE. But thanks for playing.

[The Fool]

Wrong on what? A response to your statement regarding your tour of duty regarding your rules of engagement? The 2 cents you threw in regarding your tour of duty I interpreted as a judgement on the IDF's ROE. So not really wrong on anything and didn't try to rewrite the UK's ROE. But thanks for playing.
decided yet if you are going to follow orders next period of service?

[bigjelmapro]

Why you looking up my posts TF and responding to them still? You're on ignore due to the sheer uselessness of your posts. Ta

[DC]

Why you looking up my posts TF and responding to them still? You're on ignore due to the sheer uselessness of your posts. Ta

yeah that will teach him

[The Fool]

Why you looking up my posts TF and responding to them still? You're on ignore due to the sheer uselessness of your posts. Ta
feel free to ignore my questions if thats what you need to do. But you will have to excuse me if I continue to point out the inconsistencies and other flaws in your claims as well as express concern about serving members of the IDF saying they could care less about IDF regulations.

[bigjelmapro]

Never thought it would, but prodding's always fun :)

[funk de fino]

Wrong on what? A response to your statement regarding your tour of duty regarding your rules of engagement? The 2 cents you threw in regarding your tour of duty I interpreted as a judgement on the IDF's ROE. So not really wrong on anything and didn't try to rewrite the UK's ROE. But thanks for playing.

I talk about my ROE during my service for the UK. You appaently get confused and think I am talking about the IDF ROE. Yet you do not say " I am sorry I thought you were talking about something else"

Must be some sort of mental block when I specifically said I was talking about the UK and you decide you know better about that than me.

And when you say this.

Then the terms of engagement were revised and not what they should've been

You decided they were revised eh? You just made it up?

[bigjelmapro]

I talk about my ROE during my service for the UK. You appaently get confused and think I am talking about the IDF ROE. Yet you do not say " I am sorry I thought you were talking about something else"

Nope, judgment. Stated it before, stating it here for the last time. No confusion.

If you want to go in the corner and talk about UK's ROE, start your own thread.


You decided they were revised eh? You just made it up?
So you're stating the ROE of the UK has been consistent throughout? Or you would like to pretend they were? Ah, yes, self-defence apparently doesn't exist, oh wait, its the first rule of ROE isn't it?

[The Fool]

Never thought it would, but prodding's always fun :)
Lol...If you really can actually ignore people that point out stuff you make up....you are not going to have many people left to talk to


don't forget....you claim to have me on ignore so you didn't see this post.... :)

[Skeptic]

(Shrug) I fail to see what funk and bijermal are bickering about. Both gave their own experiences of RoE procedures in different armed forces (the British Army and the IDF). Unsurprisingly the rules are somewhat different. So?

[bigjelmapro]

I have no issue with the ROEs being different at all between countries and the various campaigns/wars/battles/etc that each country's involved in. Its assumed that they are different.

The only issue I have with what Funk de fino came into this thread with is stating that his country's ROE is different during his time served in the armed forces. From my position it came off as judgmental of the ROE regarding the IDF. I commented on this and this somehow escalated. There's nothing more to it...

[funk de fino]

(Shrug) I fail to see what funk and bijermal are bickering about. Both gave their own experiences of RoE procedures in different armed forces (the British Army and the IDF). Unsurprisingly the rules are somewhat different. So?


I feel the same.

I wasnt judgemental, I was giving my experience, then I tried to clarify the UK ROE when someone was making comments on it which were wrong.

Some of the UK ROE for me outside theater were crap, so I am in no way defending them.

[Skeptic]

bigjelmapro has reason, God knows, to think those who discuss the IDF on this forum just want to dump on it without knowing anything about it. But in this case his suspicions seem unjustified.

Suspicion makes people jump to conclusion.

If you said the UK's RoE were "Shoot everything that moves", he might say it proves how nasty the world is to Israel by not letting them fight back like the UK is allowed to.

If you said they were "give them milk and cookies", he would say you're trying to make the IDF's RoE look bloodthirsty...

[bigjelmapro]

Another baseless assumption filled post. Haven't you learned anything from Steven Segal movies? Primarily about 'Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups'.

Not surprised though.

[DC]

......Steven Segal movies.....


ahaaaa, this explains alot :)

[Ryokan]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this rule will wind up being similar to the US (when I was in anyway) rule about not using the .50 cal machine gun to shoot people, only vehicles and equipment. "I wasn't shooting at the soldiers. I was shooting at the Jeep behind the soldiers" Or in this case, "I wasn't shooting at the rock throwers. I was shooting at the guys with the guns behind the rock throwers."

Did they actually tell you that?

I was told once that was just a military urban legend. Like the one about the soldier who was jailed after breaking his arm for "destruction of US government property".

You can't use .50 cal multi purpose on personell, but normal rounds? Fire away!

[bigjelmapro]

You can't use .50 cal multi purpose on personell, but normal rounds? Fire away!
How long has this myth of not being able to use .50 cal on personell gone on for? There's nothing illegal about it (Laws of war/engagement or Geneva conventions) and if .50 cal is called for, its used. This has been the case since the .50 cal was invented up to today's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[funk de fino]

How long has this myth of not being able to use .50 cal on personell gone on for? There's nothing illegal about it (Laws of war/engagement or Geneva conventions) and if .50 cal is called for, its used. This has been the case since the .50 cal was invented up to today's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And again you feel to realise that all nations may have different rules.

[bigjelmapro]

And again you feel to realise that all nations may have different rules.
As you can tell, his statement was a general one and wasn't pertaining to specific ROEs.

[funk de fino]

As you can tell, his statement was a general one and wasn't pertaining to specific ROEs.

Did you read his mind?

[bigjelmapro]

Did you read his mind?
Oh my, is your nick also Ryokan? My humble apologies for not assuming you to be the epicenter of debate [/sarcasm]

[Skeptic]

Again: bigjelmapro, what's the big deal? Yes, the IDF has different RoEs than the British Army or other Armies. Nobody is surprised, or saying the Israeli Army's laws are somehow uniquely evil. I just don't understand what you're getting so worked up about. I mean, what did you expect?

[bigjelmapro]

Not getting worked up at all. That's the problem with text. I made a clarification and moved on already.