Jewish Children Kicking Old Arab Woman

If that girl on the right really had grip as strong as she does on the woman's shroud, the woman wouldn't be standing straight up UNAFFECTED. No matter how many times you post this - IT WILL NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

The same goes for the photograph of the 12 year old Palestinian Arab boy, covering up with his father, that was killed in the line of fire between IDF and Tanzim forces. The P.A. refused to do an autopsy on the body and all photographic evidence is inconclusive, yet Palestinian Arabs and their Unwavering Leftist supporters have posted the pic as evidence that he was asassinated by an IDF soldier.

the shadows don;t match, it is a fake

Political/Event Splash Page

"

Give blood
But it could cost more than your dignity
Give blood
Parade your pallor in iniquity
Give blood
They will cry and say they're in our debt
Give blood
But then they'll sigh and they will soon forget

[man in background]
we’re heading for the day of blessings i'm telling ya,
Its all building up to something,
Something that's opening beginning with fire

[/man in background]

So give love and keep blood between brothers
Give love and keep blood between brothers"

-Pete Townsend

Be specific.

you could as easily say that this woman had just laughed in the face of the girl and boy because their father had been blown up by a suicide bomber and they in anger lashed out at her. without background of what was taking place, who can place any truth to any guess as to what is going on. and thats all any of this is, guesses.

What is this truth you are trying to avoid... running from it with your eyes closed?

The first respondant, "ARA", claims that the photo is "a fake." The "proof"? Well, it's obvious isn't it? If the girl was "really" grabbing on to the woman's chador with such force, then obviously the woman would have been more affected by it than it appears in the photo.

But, of course, there is a problem with this logic, isn't there?

It's as if we were looking at a photo of the towers of the World Trade Center. There they are, gleaming in the sun. Yet, when you look closely, you notice a commercial jet plane with its front nosecone seemingly pushing into the building, as though it is in the first moments of actually flying into/through one of the towers. But, obviously, the photo is a fake. For if a jet were to do such a thing, it would cause an explosion so large that the entire building might ultimately collapse. And as we can see, the building is still standing. So, obviously, the photo is a fake. Equally obvious, the photo above must also a fake. If it WAS real, the woman wearing the chador would have been severely kicked and fallen to the ground. She would have suffered significant pain, bruises, perhaps broken bones. And the attackers might have continued to kick, pull, drag or otherwise violently batter this woman whom they have cowardly attacked from behind.


Then there is the response from "e-man." He doesn't deny the authenticity of the photo. But, he says that "you could as easily say" the victim had made an offensive remark. He makes this statement without any evidence whatsoever, admitting that it is a "guess."

I agree with him that his own guess is based upon nothing, "without background of what was taking place."

But e-man's attempt to equate his fabrication to the contents of the original posting is completely without merit.

e-man admittedly fabricates a scenario that he believes would somehow justify this senseless attack. Even if it was true, the premise that an individual's rude comment can serve as a justification for a violent group-attack upon that individual is appalling. It is contrary to liberty and free speech.

The original author, Tom, made no fabrication. Tom simply described what can be directly seen in the photo, itself.

The only criticisms I could even begin to make of Tom's description are that:

1. Only one of the two attackers is kicking the woman.

2. Attacker number two is instead pulling the woman's chador and it seems likely that this act, in combination with the boy's kick, will cause the woman to fall to the ground.

3. It is not clear whether "attacker number two" is a child. (Though it does seem likely.)

4. It is not clear that the victim is "old," nor "Arab." (Though the clothing is strong evidence that she is Muslim and many Muslims in that area are, in fact, Arab.)

There may be socio-cultural clues within the photo that would address points 3 and 4 of which I am not aware. If so, I would welcome elucidation.

*******
Please...

Support full-compliance with the UN Declaration of Human Rights by ALL nations.

Hold military and governmental leaders accountable for their actions and orders. Uphold the Nuremburg Laws. (Though, let's drop the "death penalty" part of it, OK?)


Peace with Justice for all persons!

Mr. Normal

"e-man admittedly fabricates a scenario that he believes would somehow justify this senseless attack."

No he didn't! e-man said everyone is just guessing. He justified nothing. He simply said that Tom could have shown the picture and implied that the woman had just insulted the two kids and they lashed out at her in anger. Instead, Tom implied that they are racist Jews kicking an Arab woman just because of who she is. I agreee with e-man. Without knowing the background, this is just a photo suspended in time.

Mr. Normal, OJ would have loved you, baby!!

>For if a jet were to do such a thing, it would cause an explosion so large that the entire building might ultimately collapse.

And the proof of this is?

I think the pictures authentic but u gotta realize that theyre just kids, they know whats going on and want to do something about it. Its wrong but they know they cant go, get a gun and fight in that sense so they kick an woman...who doesnt look all that old to me. Also knowdise the 2 soldiers repelling the kids. Thats why i htink its authentic

-- Response to Trent --

But e-man was NOT guessing; he was simply fabricating. Nothing in the photo suggested eman's version.

And e-man implied that his version was contrary but equivalent ("could as easily say") to Tom's original submission.

I felt that e-man was saying that if his guess was in fact true, then the children's actions would be justified. Perhaps that is not what e-man intended, but until e-man says otherwise, I will assume that it IS what he intended.

Also, Tom did not imply that the children were racists. What he did was to ask a rhetorical question and target that question to a specific group -- "Jews whom are racists." His point, I think, was that seemingly any information, regardless of truth or falsity, which casts a negative light upon the Government of the State of Israel, is attacked by persons within this specific group as being "anti-semitic propaganda." This, of course, is in some ways too limited, since there are both non-Jews and non-racists who would reflexively respond in the same manner. Nevertheless, I think Tom's point is valid.

Whether or not the attackers in the original photo are racists is completely unknown. We don't know how they conceive of the completely contrived and meritless concept of "race." Perhaps the attackers' motivations were that they saw the woman as being of a different "race" or a different religion, or perhaps they're just violent, damaged children who would eagerly batter any vulnerable member of society, regardless of any other status, actual or imputed.


-- Response to debate coach --

You are fired.


-- Response to Joe --

I see the soldiers, but they don't seem to be repelling anyone. At the most, one of the soldiers has his right arm in the air. But we can't see the soldier's head/face... maybe he is telling the kids to stop attacking this woman. Or maybe he is giving them the "thumbs up" sign in support. Or maybe he's talking to his buddy, telling him that there is a store "down that way a few blocks" that has really good falafel. Totally Unknown.

trent's evaluation of what i said is correct. my statement did not reflect that any action taking place in the photo was 'justified'. If i had meant that, i would have used the word 'justified'. Unless i say it, you haven't any right to put words or thoughts where i have not. You did 'assume', you assumed incorrectly, and you know what happens when you assume.

my point was that Tom could have posted the heading "Jewish Children Kicking Old Arab Woman After She Laughs In Their Face Because A Suicide Bomber Killed Their Parents", and under the photo could have written "Is this "anti-palestinian propaganda", you Arab racists? Tell me, how do YOU intepret this picture then?", and this whole conversation would have taken off in a whole different direction.


you said ,"Whether or not the attackers in the original photo are racists is completely unknown. We don't know how they conceive of the completely contrived and meritless concept of "race." Perhaps the attackers' motivations were that they saw the woman as being of a different "race" or a different religion, or perhaps they're just violent, damaged children who would eagerly batter any vulnerable member of society, regardless of any other status, actual or imputed."

you also said, "I see the soldiers, but they don't seem to be repelling anyone. At the most, one of the soldiers has his right arm in the air. But we can't see the soldier's head/face... maybe he is telling the kids to stop attacking this woman. Or maybe he is giving them the "thumbs up" sign in support. Or maybe he's talking to his buddy, telling him that there is a store "down that way a few blocks" that has really good falafel. Totally Unknown."

see guy, you're just guessing, too, which was my whole point.

She is just another murdering Arab bitch.