First....your OP did not say "reported," it said ":report."
You posted, per I/P rules, the following:
Settlers kill Palestinian boy: report
Jewish settlers stabbed a Palestinian boy to death in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, witnesses said.
They said the 12-year-old was ambushed by several settlers near his home at Qaryot village outside the Palestinian-ruled city of Nablus. He was stabbed 11 times, medics said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Settlers-kill-Pales... You did not add any additional comments to the piece.
I then posted, also according to I/P rules, although not required in a sub-post.
Palestinian youth stabbed to death in West Bank brawl
"JERUSALEM (AP) - A Palestinian boy was stabbed to death Wednesday in a West Bank brawl, hospital officials said, but it was not clear if settlers or fellow Palestinians were to blame."
--snip--
"The boy's father blamed settlers but said he was unable to identify them for certain. Others said the stabbing might have been part of an internal Palestinian feud."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/602680.html I also did not add any comments. Though, I should have added that I added the emphasis in the first paragraph, which was not included in the original. This was an oversight on my part.
Then, another poster, posted, what I considered a crass remark comparing the settlers to the Klan. To his post, I posted the “Whoops!” post, which, again in accordance with I/P rules, contained the article’s title and a brief snip of the article and its link. Again, on oversight, I forgot to add that I added the emphasis not in the original piece, but added no words of my own.
You posted:
Whoops indeed. Did the headline change?
Because when I clicked on the link, the headline says (emphasis mine): 'Palestinian boy likely stabbed to death in West Bank clan feud'. The article definately doesn't say for sure who murdered him. If the investigation does find that it was the work of settlers (but who would suspect settlers?? I mean it's not like they haven't murdered Palestinians in the past!!), I expect a rock can be handily conjured into that boys hand in attempts to justify his murder
Violet...
I cannot control whether
Ha’aretz alters its titles as it updates pieces. I did not say the article definitely said who the perpetrators were. As a matter of fact, your original post title, “
Settlers kill Palestinian boy: report” and my post directed at the other poster read, “
Pal. boy killed in inter-clan feud, are the same except the perpetrators are different. The very first sentence in my post says; “
A Palestinian boy was stabbed to death Wednesday in what was likely a brawl between rival clans in the West Bank.” It has the very word you were looking for, “likely.” So, what was the real issue? Your OP didn’t include ‘likely’ when it was thought to be the Jewish settlers. Yet, the first sentence clearly says “witness say.” Perhaps you thought my second post was casting blame because the original title didn’t include the word “likely?” If so, then it stands to reason that your OP did the very same thing, for the very same reason. My first post actually had a better title than both of our other posts, as it only stated fact and not witness conjecture.
In post 4, you opine that any subsequent investigation where settlers were found to be responsible would lead to a ‘cover-up’ by making up that the boy had a stone in an attempt to justify his murder. This statement implied that some would rationalize the death of the child because he provoked the response. I, therefore, took your statement and satirized it, with the clan members in place of settlers. I stated that the revelation of clan members doing it would evoke a propaganda smear against Israel saying she was involved in a cover-up and this would allow rockets to be used as a response. So, my implication was that if clan members were responsible that some would justify rockets being launched into Israel as a legitimate response to the murder.
Post 14, by you, included, “
You appear to have some problem with the fact that due to the murderous activities of extremist settlers in the past, it was very reasonable to think they could have been responsible. Or do you share the views of the poster that I was replying to that pointing out what extremist settlers have done in the past is smearing Israel?” You somehow reached a conclusion that I had a problem with the settlers being possible perpetrators, even though in my first two posts I said nothing! And the post, to which yours was addressing, I still said nothing about having a problem with the settlers being a possible suspect. And your other question about if I felt the same as another poster and his take on thinking you were smearing Israel was met with “
I don't think it is smearing Israel to point out extremist settlers, any more than it is smearing Palestinians when pointing out terrorist activity and internal political strife.,” which really was a ‘red herring’ on your part because I had never said or even implied that you were smearing Israel; you didn’t write the article.
Your post, #16, again deals with an issue over which I have no control, the changing of an article title by the site linked. However, you claim the title I posted made a definitive statement about the party responsible and implied yours did not because it had the word “report.” Your OP did not say “Reported Jewish settlers murder Palestinian boy,” but rather, “Settlers kill Palestinian boy: report.” The title suggests Jewish settlers were responsible and this article is a report, statement. Oddly enough, the next sentences in both of our posts point out the reports were based on witness testimony.
You go on in post #16 to continue with your opinion that I have a problem with the possibility that I have an issue with settlers being responsible, then say I am “accusing” you of the same, in reverse. Yet, I had said nothing about having an issue with settlers possibly being the perpetrators. When I ‘turn the tables’ and opine the same, in reverse, you say it is an accusation based on nothing you have said, just my opinion. So, is it not fair to say you were also accusing me of something I neither said nor did?
So, here we are. The fact is settlers were not responsible, yet, you seem to want to make them responsible because of their past actions. Is the death of this child less tragic because it was not the work of “evil” settlers? I don’t think so. And, despite our differences, I don’t think you do either. So, why don’t you just say that it wasn’t the settlers, the original report was wrong, and the fact that clan members were involved doesn’t make this any less of a horrific or tragic event?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
