Woman killed in Qassam attack

[eyl]

A 24-year-old woman was killed in a Qassam rocket attack Thursday afternoon on Netiv Ha’asara, north of Gaza’s Erez crossing, after terrorists fired four rockets at the community.

Both the Islamic Jihad and the Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. However, Palestinian sources in Gaza estimate the Islamic Jihad was behind the rocket barrage.

Another person in the area suffered from anxiety in the wake of the attack.

Overall, Palestinians fired 11 mortar shells and Qassam rockets Thursday afternoon. Four of them landed at an IDF base in the northern Gaza Strip and damaged a structure in the area.

Source

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Another senseless death.

I think reports are now saying she was 22. I just another report on YNET.

[newyorican]

2. You don't steal other peoples land

Sympathy for the kid's womans family, issues of ethnicity and injustice, and squabbles over territory and religion all aside, it's a stupid thing to do, and automatically enters the kid woman in the Darwin Awards competition.

If stoning land theft is so harmless, I suggest at the next political rally in town we all get together and throw stones--not pebbles--at forcibly take real estate of the speaker. I doubt he'll think it a safe, fun way of blowing off steam. We'll be arrested at gunpoint and tried for battery criminal trespass, if not much worse.

Get enough people together throwing stones stealing land, and you have one archaic method for execution ethnic cleansing.

Credit given where credit is due for this compassionate sentiment. She lived in the Netiv Ha’asara Settlement/Colony.

Disclaimer: The views contained herein are those of the original poster and do not reflect the opinion of this DUer. This is simply an example of how the same terms and language is deemed acceptable or not based on the ethnicity of the target. Class dismissed.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. That's some sympathy you've got there

So,is lethal force justified in every instance
where kids against young women,or rioters settlers,or demonstrators others are throwing
stones at armed police preparing to relocate back into Israel,regardless of the fact that
those armed police terrorists are involved in illegal acts themselves?

Credit for the response to your 'credit.' So, she lived in the Netiv Ha’asara Settlement/Colony and therefore, deserved to die?

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are similar to mine as I think terrorist acts are unjustifiable in all cases and do not compare to normal police actions.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Try reading Newyorican's disclaimer...

That will clear up yr question. Unless you also want to ask the poster in the other thread if he thought that boy deserved to die...

btw, several people in that thread pointed out at the time that it was not the police who shot the boy, but a security guard...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Read it...read mine!

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I read both of them...

Which is why I found this question pretty silly: 'So, she lived in the Netiv Ha’asara Settlement/Colony and therefore, deserved to die?' Or are you saying that boy who was shot dead by a security guard deserved to die?

on edit: thought I might add my own disclaimer for the record that I think neither deserved to die. Just in case someone's thinking of popping up and asking me questions of the kind you asked Newyorican. Not that disclaimers seem to be taken notice of..

Violet...

[Englander]

13. I'll support your disclaimer,Violet. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

21. You see no distinction?

There is a difference between someone getting killed while throwing rocks at a security guard, and someone getting killed while sitting on a porch. One is provoking a response, the other is not. It doesn't mean the boy "deserved" to die, but he provoked a response, and it happened to be deadly. There is NO explanation on how sitting on one's porch provokes the same response.

My question was not 'silly' because the poster implied that the woman, by her very presence in a settlement, provoked a response similar to throwing rocks.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. There is NO distinction...

Neither of them deserved to die and neither of them were doing anything that justified their deaths. And why yr question was ridiculous because you were implying that Newyorican thought the woman deserved to die, which he did not at all...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

33. There IS, you just fail to see it.

There is a difference between sitting on a balcony and throwing rocks, it is ridiculous that a difference cannot be seen. :shrug: Seeing that one was a provocateur and the other was not, shouldn't be all that difficult. It also shouldn't imply that either deserved to die. It is no different than a driver being killed by a speeder, and driver killed while racing a car (on a raceway). Neither may have deserved to die, but one was certainly at more of a risk of death by the actions taken, the other, by circumstance.

The implication was because he stated her living location, as if that were germane to the discussion, which is why I asked the question. Also his title would suggest a rationale (reason) for her death.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. There isn't...

Both these people were human beings and civilians. There is no justification for the death of either and there should not be a withholding of sympathy based on a clumsy series of 'but!' excuses which to me seem to happen with some posters based on the ethnicity of the dead. A kid throwing a stone is now labelled a 'provocateur'?? What next? And if it shouldn't be implied that either deserved to die, then why did you ask Newyorican that ridiculous question.

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Read this thread again.

No one said neither were not humans/civilians. I would not withhold sympathy for anyone who was sitting on a porch and gets killed. And, yes, a kid throwing stones is a provocateur! Just like a settler throwing nails into a busy highway, or is that not an issue?

It is funny how we're being 'scolded,' but "dollars to donuts," had this been a settler killed trying to resist the relocation and it would be met with very similar conditional expressions of sympathy, if any at all.

My statement that it should not be implied that either deserved to die was based on the statement I made before it..."Seeing that one was a provocateur and the other was not, shouldn't be all that difficult.," which is EXACTLY why I asked the question I did, because his ridiculous disclaimer and title implied otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I've already read it...

You wouldn't withhold sympathy for the woman, but you do for the boy? Fucking lovely. You say that neither deserved to die, yet you trot out excuse after excuse which appear to imply the boy deserved to die. No, a kid throwing a stone is a kid throwing a fucking stone. Labelling him as anything but the victim of an unjustified killing shows a severe lack of basic compassion, imo...

Who's 'we'? I'm not scolding *you*. I'm pointing out that compassion isn't some one-sided thing where sympathy should only be expressed when what you consider to be 'worthy' victims are killed. And please don't waste my time telling me what you think other people would say in any situation. Why don't you stick to talking about what *you* think and leave it to other people to speak for themselves?

There's nothing complicated in going back and reading newyorican's disclaimer and spotting the plain obvious fact that he was not at all saying or implying that the woman deserved to die. You want to keep trying to insist he did, feel free to go for it, but don't expect those of us who can read and comprehend what he said to fall for that tactic...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Twist and turn

It is obvious that you read what you wish, no matter if it is there or not. So, to make it VERY simple: NEITHER deserved to die. One was acting in a reckless manner, and was killed; the other was not.

And, he did make an ambiguous statement, which is why I asked HIM what he thought. So, "Why don't you stick to talking about what *you* think and leave it to other people to speak for themselves?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I prefer standing still and watching the twisting...

Nope, not reading what I wish at all. There is no distinction between the two deaths as neither deserved to die, which is what I've been trying to point out the whole time..

I suspect Newyoricans disclaimer was only ambiguous to those who wanted it to be. Which is why I've asked you why you asked what was really a silly question, and haven't had any sort of logical reply.

So, "Why don't you stick to talking about what *you* think and leave it to other people to speak for themselves?

Uh, because I'm not doing what you did, which in yr case was telling me how other people would react to a circumstance. I'm telling YOU what *I* read and understood. Big difference, so in future when embarking on attempts to turn my words back on me, make sure you get it right, okay?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Disclaimers

Disclaimer: The views contained herein are those of the original poster and do not reflect the opinion of this DUer. This is simply an example of how the same terms and language is deemed acceptable or not based on the ethnicity of the target.

This 'disclaimer' does not express an opinion. A disclaimer which states no position is ambiguous, as it does not say one way or the other; and, therefore is ambiguous. However, his mentioning of her place of residence was why I asked the question I did. Yet, you seem to think that his 'disclaimer,' which states no opinion, is saying he thinks one way, even though he clearly states that the views expressed do not reflect the opinion of this DUer and no where in the post expresses his opinion. So, saying, "I suspect Newyoricans disclaimer was only ambiguous to those who wanted it to be." would be incorrect, as it is only ambiguous to people who can actually see that he does not state an opinion one way or the other. I did, however, explain why I asked the question, not once, but three times. I cannot be responsible for you not seeing the logic in my three responses. You may not agree with how I reached my conclusion, thus spurring my question, but I did show you, three times, how I came to my conclusion.

"So, "Why don't you stick to talking about what *you* think and leave it to other people to speak for themselves?"

"And why yr question was ridiculous because you were implying that Newyorican thought the woman deserved to die, which he did not at all..." As he did not state an opinion, you stated it for him; thereby speaking for him. I didn't state what he thought, I asked if, by stating her location, was somehow a statement of his opinion. So any implication on my part was because I saw his statement as a possible implication to his opinion, which is why I asked for clarification. That clarification did not arrive, except in your interpretation about his non-opinion. So, your words were turned appropriately.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It's the fucking Energizer Bunny...

Just keeps on keeping on...

I give up, bta. Yr just so much more intelligent than us and I bow in awe of yr stunning intellect and logic! I don't know why anyone else bothers posting in this forum when yr around to say what they will say and how they will act in threads :eyes:

This sentence pretty much sums up the incredible stupidity of this pointless discussion:

"So any implication on my part was because I saw his statement as a possible implication to his opinion, which is why I asked for clarification."

I just nodded off at about the fourth word of that, so I'm down to the equally pointless Duelling Dictionaries part of the thread to catch up on any petulant posts I've missed from before...

Violet...

[newyorican]

39. This is still going on?!?

Goodness gracious.

The disclaimer is not ambiguous to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills. I see no need to reword the disclaimer in an attempt to satisfy those that will never be satisfied in the matter of disparate treatment based on ethnicity.

Amazing that simply holding up a mirror evokes such a visceral reaction to the reflected image.

:popcorn:

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Disclaimers

"Disclaimer: The views contained herein are those of the original poster and do not reflect the opinion of this DUer. This is simply an example of how the same terms and language is deemed acceptable or not based on the ethnicity of the target."

So where is YOUR opinion? It isn't there! Basic reading comprehension should show that you DID NOT state YOUR opinion. Therefore, the disclaimer is ambiguous, as the ONLY opinion expressed (supposedly) is the opinion of the author who you parodied.

So check that mirror...it is reflecting back an opinion of another poster with whom does "not reflect the opinion of this DUer."

[newyorican]

48. This is somewhat entertaining...

in a rather infantile way.

You object to the opinion reflected in the parodied statement, and I stated clearly that opinion was not my own, yet you're on to me for, for, exactly what...is not clear. But I will use grade school grammar in an attempt* to restate what is absolutely clear in my disclaimer, not withstanding the deliberate and willful ignorance in full display in this thread.

Neither person deserved death. (Rather anticlimactic, isn't it)

*Attempt is emphasized for reasons stated in Post# 39 (I hope that's clear fer chrissake).

[eyl]

43. Do you know

what can happen to someone who gets hit by a stone to the head? (I'll remind you that throwing stones at someone is used as a form of execution - and most people don't use nonlethal force for executions).

I've never seen, with my own eyes, the damage thrown stones cause to a human - but I have seen the damage to vehicles, and if it had been a person who had been struck by those, he would have ended up in the hospital (at best).

[Violet_Crumble]

46. So you think it's justified to shoot kids throwing stones?

It did say in the article that the shot boy wasn't even throwing stones, but was a bystander. Anyway, neither of those deaths were justified, and I feel sympathy for both victims. I find it sad that some posters in this thread have put their compassion aside and are so hung up on playing the Worthy Victims game...

I'm sure that Palestinian who was attacked by settlers a week or so back can attest to how dangerous stone-throwing is. And the settlers who tried to kill him can attest to how safe it is to be an Israeli throwing stones at a Palestinian and know you won't get shot...

Violet...

[eyl]

47. Depends

I don't know enough about the cirumstances. But if the throwers were within stone range (or sling range, if they were using one), and if the guard gave warning (such as a shot in the air), then the shooting might have been justified. Sure, I feel sorry for the kid and his family; that doesn't mean he didn't act stupidly, or that the shooting wa snecessarily unjustified.

As for the other, I've already addressed that at length elsewhere.

[Englander]

5. Can I claim copyright infringement for this post?

Maybe I should start adding © to the end of my comments...

[Monkie]

6. your words have copyrights,if valued at over $2500 its a felony

otherwise its a civil matter, that only problem i see is that criticism and parody are allowed. But you are right in thinking that your posts are your own intellectual property
I know calling posts to forums on the internet intellectual property is quite a stretch, but hey, i dont make up these laws.

[Englander]

8. Really? I was only kidding,but it's good to know they're valued.

I can see that post 3 is criticism,but I'd disagree
that it falls into the category of parody,as I thought
that the point of parody was that it's meant to be humorous...;)

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Parody

as defined here: A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule (emphasis added)

[Englander]

11. Hey,let's just lob dictionary definitions at each other!!

ridiculous

• adjective inviting mockery or derision; absurd.

— DERIVATIVES ridiculously adverb ridiculousness noun.

— ORIGIN Latin ridiculus ‘laughable’, from ridere ‘to laugh’.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=ridiculous&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Duelling Dictionaries!

Great! I'm sitting here with the popcorn! My money's on anyone who lobs the Oxford dictionary, btw...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Fine.

But at least lob the correct definition. The "word" was "ridicule" which from the beloved Oxford states: verb make fun of; mock. As opposed to the obscene The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language which states: tr. v. To expose to ridicule; make fun of.

Therefore, I can see how it could be confusing that one might think all parodies are supposed to be "humorous." Most probably are humorous, but sometimes, it is nothing more than a form of mockery, in which one may or may not find humor in the creation. Since the parody was not intended to be 'humorous,' but a 'mockery,' it should be further noted that the original piece was not being mocked, but the post (another parody, which was mocking its original) it followed.

[Englander]

24. Ho- hum. The 'ridiculous' reference from the all-knowing OED...

was intended as a suggestion that one should consider
that the attempt at a parody* was,in fact,inviting derision.

The first attempt made an important & pertinent point that
there is a distinct difference in the language & attitudes
expressed in these tragic cases,but, unfortunately the response
was lacking in relevance,as the original meaning & intention
of my original post was lost in the subversion of said post.


*parody

• noun (pl. parodies) 1 an *amusingly* exaggerated imitation of the style of a writer, artist, or genre. 2 a feeble imitation.

• verb (parodies, parodied) produce a parody of.

— DERIVATIVES parodic adjective parodist noun.

— ORIGIN Greek paroidia ‘burlesque poem or song’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/parody
_____________________

mockery

• noun (pl. mockeries) 1 ridicule. 2 an absurd representation of something.

— PHRASES make a mockery of cause to appear foolish or absurd.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mockery

___________________

amuse

• verb 1 cause (someone) to laugh or smile. 2 entertain.

— DERIVATIVES amused adjective amusing adjective.

— ORIGIN Old French amuser ‘entertain, deceive’, from muser ‘stare stupidly’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/amuse

[Behind the Aegis]

26. OIC

So, you were trying to say that the second parody was inviting mockery. Good to know.

As for the first part of your assertion, "The first attempt made an important & pertinent point that there is a distinct difference in the language & attitudes expressed in these tragic cases,..." that MIGHT be true IF the two examples were both acts of terrorism OR if both persons killed were acting provocatively. So, it is not a distinction about WHO was KILLED, but HOW they were killed.

As for part two, where you say "but, unfortunately the response was lacking in relevance,as the original meaning & intention of my original post was lost in the subversion of said post", it appears you missed the part where it was stated that the original post was not the parody, in of itself, but more a parody of the first feeble parody. Therefore, your original post (from the other thread), was a means to an end and the parody was not a comment on it. However, you do demonstrate my point, as you say my 'parody' 'lacked relevance of the original meaning,' which is exactly what the first parody does by comparing two different situations that only are connected by the deaths of individuals under very different situations.

[Monkie]

14. as we were doing parody

i felt a exhaustive discussion of the finer points of some irrelevant law, while figuratively standing over the still warm body of this victim, was needed to complete the picture..

[Monkie]

15. i have yet to see police of any other nation consider helicoptergunships

firing missiles in residential areas as normal police actions under ANY circumstances.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/599795.html

"Israel Air Force helicopter gunships fired missiles at targets in the Gaza Strip in the early hours of Friday morning, witnesses said, in retaliation for a rocket attack on a Negev moshav that killed a woman. The army also cut the Strip into three, severely limiting Palestinian movement."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/871A8111-5DD1-4EE8-9940-57F3868FB00A.htm

"Israeli helicopters have fired missiles in five separate air raids in the Gaza Strip in the space of an hour, witnesses say.

The Israeli raids early on Friday were the most intense in the occupied territory in months."

I of course cant imagine the pain this womens family is in now,or the horror of her last moments,i deplore the killing of civilians and even this pacifist realises one has a right to defend ones self,but to call the reaction a normal police action,or even a police action is more than just a stretch.Maybe you can help me because i cant think of any comparable action by police in any other state,democratic or otherwise,in recent years or for that matter ever.

[henank]

17. Who said it was Police action?

This was nothing to do with the police - it was any army activity, undertaken not as "revenge" (I think the Israeli army is too busy to think of revenge) but as preventive and counter-terrorist action to stop the bombardment of Israeli towns by Palestinian terrorist missiles. Police don't take action against missiles in any country - that's army territory. If the terrorists would stop firing missiles the army would not need to go in.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Welcome to DU, henank.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. But, that wasn't the comparison, now was it?

The ORIGINAL piece dealt with 'rock-trowing' and a response in bullet form. I was not talking about anything further.

[Monkie]

25. ah,my bad.i misunderstood when i could of made more effort

to get right what you were saying and my comparison was unfair.So its only right for me to say i was wrong.

[henank]

16. Settlement?

Repl to No. 2 - "She lived in the Netiv Ha’asara Settlement/Colony."

Just my 2c worth - Netiv Ha'asara is not a settlement in the widely held sense - it is inside the Green Line in what is so commonly called "Israel Proper". However I won't dwell on this too much because it makes it seem it's OK to bomb settlements.

[Jim Sagle]

29. You mean it's NOT OK? Who knewwww?

And hooooo blowed up da owl? ;)

[newyorican]

31. Settlement?

Ahhh, why use weasel words, call it what it is...a colony.

IDF sources suggested that the choice of Shderot as a target may not have been a coincidence -- though nobody commented on the fact that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Sycamore Ranch is only a few more kilometers east of Shderot. So far, only small settlements, such as Kibbutz Nahal Oz and Netiv Ha'asara, have been targeted. Nevertheless, the fact that a large and densely populated town well inside Israel had been targeted was seen as a marked escalation by the Palestinians.

Source

Don't argue with me about the definition, widely held or not. It appears Israeli sources define Netiv Ha'asara as a settlement. Your arguement is with them. Happy hunting.

[eyl]

44. So you

do consider all of Israel occupied territory? Useful to know, I guess

(FYI - both Nativ Ha'asara and Nahal Oz areoutside the Gaza Strip. They're only "settlements" in the proper English term of the word, i.e. a place where people live. I doubt that was the definition you were using, however, based on your additional description of it as a "Colony")

[eyl]

18. First of all,

by what measure is Netiv Ha'sara a settlement? OR are you one of those who define the whole of Israel as occupied territory?

Second, do you really see no difference between a passive action - being at a location - and an active one - attacking a security guard?

Third, even if they had both been active events, and as you describe, do you really equate theft with the use of potentially lethal force?

(and for the record - if py "original poster" you mean me - I didn't post the original claim.

[eyl]

19. Or in other words

"This is simply an example of how the same terms and language is deemed acceptable or not based on the ethnicity of the target."

Not to mention the on the circumstances of the case...

[Englander]

20. Q.E.D. n/t.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Where'd they hold that class? Inside a dumpster?

[newyorican]

32. It appears...

I've struck a nerve.

All I did was hold a mirror up and there is a cacophony of yelping.

Perhaps this will provoke some thought with regard to compassion for our fellow humans, perhaps not.

Class may be dismissed, but schooling is, obviously, still needed.

[eyl]

45. Since the mirror you hald up

had all the inconvenient (to your argument) bits thrown out, what do you expect?