Israeli Sniper Posts Instagram Photo of Child in Crosshairs


#1

http://electronicintifada.net/sites/electronicintifada.net/files/styles/large/public/boy_in_crosshairs.jpg

This disturbing image shows the back of the head of a child or young man as seen in the crosshairs of a rifle. The photo was posted on the personal Instagram account of Mor Ostrovski, a 20-year old Israeli soldier in a sniper unit.

Israeli soldier posts disturbing Instagram photo of child in crosshairs of his rifle | The Electronic Intifada


#2

Oh great. Reported by a blog…


#3

Why should Trekky care? To him its perfectly acceptable to mangle the bodies of unborn babies with the intent to kill them.

Oh…That’s right…it’s an unverifiable negative report that makes Israel look EVIL. It is a lame attempt to deflect the EVIL that he promotes.


#4

There’s a cached version of his instagram you can see. But what if this situation were reversed and it was an Israeli soldier in crosshairs? Or an American soldier? Why does Israel get a pass for certain things from us when they break international laws and seize land from Palestinian families?

I understand that Israel is under attack from Hamas and Palestinian terrorists. But why do we have to take any side in this conflict? Can we not say both sides are pretty awful? If we can’t even look at a photo of a Palestinian child in Israeli crosshairs and admit wrongdoing by Israel, something is wrong.


#5

First Off, it’s obvious that you know absolutely nothing about snipers. While I’m no expert, I work with a former sniper that took the time to show me some tricks of target shooting with a rifle. Being friends, we have discussed many other aspects of how snipers operate with respect to their weapon. When they are in position, they survey the entire area as best that they can via the perspective of their scope. Many, if not all potential targets are viewed through their scope. In many cases, they are collecting information to assess the potential for collateral damage. seeing where non-targets are postioned can be just as important as acquiring actual targets. It’s call situational awareness and it is very important to know as much as possible about a situation prior to pulling the trigger because the sniper may only get the chance to do it once. Therefore, it must be effective or it was all a waste.

Did he pull the trigger when that child was in the view of his scope? I’ll bet that the answer is no, unless that child was carrying out an attack.

There is no pass here for Israel. Besides, Hamas and other terrorist organizations have declared the US to be their ENEMY. Israel has been our ALLY–unless your 0bamessiah has his way. Do you know the difference between ENEMIES and ALLIES? That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is obviously NO.

Your post is just another example of how Liberals hate our ALLIES and LOVE our ENEMIES due to their own loathing of the US.


#6

There are no interneational laws being broken in this picture. The young man is of fighting age in that area of the world, the soldier didn’t shoot him, he is observing him.

seize land from Palestinian families?[
If I’m not mistaken (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) were the Palestinian’s refugies from several Arab states that wouldn’t allow them back and the land they sit on is/was Israeli land? And no sir, with what Israel has been through I do not think they are awful. I can promise you this, if countries around us had the same things happen here we’d be invading. I think Israel operates with far too much restraint.


#7

I think you are right about the refugees. Although, when Israel was first made a nation, many Arabs fled to Jordan (at the instigation of the Arabs in the surrounding countries, telling them they could return and “take back” their land once these other nations had wiped out Israel (AKA the Jews). Also, although we have been shown maps that ostensibly show that most of “Palestine” was owned by Arabs before the Jews started returning, the real truth of that map was that it was showing what was occupied by the Jews, and the assumption was made that the rest was occupied by Arabs. Actually, the truth is that most of that land was unoccupied. When Jews started returning to Israel, the Arabs started moving in also, and probably “claimed” all the unoccupied land. I do know that they sold what they considered the poorest of the land to Jews for an exorbitant price. The Jews took that land and made it into some of the “best” land, and then the Arabs started whining that they stole it. None of the land was taken by the Jews by force. They paid for it.


#8

If Al Qaeda posted the same picture with an American in their scope, would you be singing the same tune?


#9

[quote=“Conservative_Libertarian, post:3, topic:38253”]
Why should Trekky care? To him its perfectly acceptable to mangle the bodies of unborn babies with the intent to kill them.

Oh…That’s right…it’s an unverifiable negative report that makes Israel look EVIL. It is a lame attempt to deflect the EVIL that he promotes.
[/quote]The photo looks photoshopped. Where did I see the same thing years ago? Yes on another site that was trying to make our soldiers look bad.

Here is another goodie


#10

I would see it as a war photo. Sir you are what we called in the Hard Hat Diving industry a “Poop Stick” (we used more colorful terms) in that you constantly seek to stir the bucket of crap up.

Can someone tell me where the ignor button is on this site? There are some members I just do not care to hear from.


#11

You have to go to your profile (User CP in the second strip below the title banner), and look for it. I have to look every time, and I think I have more people on ignore than anyone on this site (55). Although many of them have since been banned, or just faded out.


#12

BTW, many of us have seen Trekky exactly as you have.


#13

I can promise you this, if countries around us had the same things happen here we’d be invading.

You mean something along the lines of what “Blackjack” Pershing was doing in 1916, or that happened in 1846 in Texas?

Just to anticipate and answer that might arise from ConLib’s post above, why would a sniper survey his field of vision using his scope? While the field of vision in a rifle scope is quite narrow (requiring a lot of time and movement to cover the entire field of vision), it also gives the sniper far greater detail than he could see or discern with an unaided eye. Thus, a sniper might be able to discern whether a vague bundle likely contained olives or an IED, firewood or an AK-47.

Another thing to consider, Trekky … you posted one picture and drew a lot of conclusions from it that really are little more than your assumptions and prejudices. Assuming the pic is genuine (unlike, for example, the infamous al Dura video) (that the image in the close-by scope and the relatively far off buildings are all pretty much in focus immediately suggested to me that the pic may be fauxny) you don’t know how many other pix the sniper took while on duty that day. Was this the sole pic? Or did (s)he take dozens of pics while surveying his/her field of view, so (s)he or the next person on duty would be able to detect any change/addition to a building that might be evidence of an enemy sniper/ambusher or an IED? You say the person seen through the scope is a Palestinian and a child. Really? You met the “child” and confirmed his/her age and ethnicity? The person has their back turned to the camera and appears to be at a building parapet or a low wall. What is in front of them? An AK-47? An IED? A school textbook? A falafel?

And more basic and obvious (so basic and obvious that I overlooked it for several minutes): first, reread the title from The Electronic Intifada’s (what bias do think they have?) article; then look at the picture. What is wrong in the article title? Hint: It proves the Israeli sniper - assuming the genuineness of the pic - was not targeting the person in his/her rifle scope.

And I have a question for those who have served in the military. Look closely at what I have been calling a rifle scope. Is that actually … a rifle scope? Or is it a non-weapon-mounted device for surveying an area (a moving rifle barrel while using a scope to survey an area could expose the sniper’s existence and location)?

It’s interesting to look at a picture and analyze how much it shows, how much it does not, and how much that we think is “there” is actually our assumptions and prejudice-influenced interpretation. And of course, that I would point out all this comes partly from my biases (which are based on recent decades of ME history).


#14

I just view Trekky’s post (I have him on ignore, so I have to do the view thing to see the pic), and you have torn his (Trekky’s) assumptions apart nicely. Actually - if the picture were accurate - if he intended to shoot the young man, he would probably have been gone before the picture was captured, anyway.


#15

The photo looks photoshopped.

If you mean the in-focus depth of field, sam, I agree that the pic looks suspicious on its face. Camera optics - digital or standard SLR - don’t do well at keeping extremely near and far objects in focus simultaneously. But one of our cultural biases is that, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” and we tend to trust pictures. We forget that they may be airbrushed/fautoshopped, are often one instant in a much greater context, and that we bring our assumptions to interpreting the picture.

Looking again at the pic, the depth of field issue is worse than I initially pointed out. The “image in the scope” is in focus; the outer parts of the scope, the same distance from the “camera” is out of focus; the buildings in the distance are once again in focus. Those three parts of the “picture” are so incongruous that I’m close to certain the “picture” is phony.

On another aspect of this, unless the IDF or a particular known IDF soldier avows the picture as genuine, the provenance of this picture is The Electronic Intifada - even the supposed source on Instagram could in reality be The Electronic Intifada. Would advocates for the Pali Arabs perpetrate such a slander? Three words should suffice: Mohammed al Dura.


#16

The point I’m trying to make, which I think has been shown in this thread, is that we give Israel an enormous amount of slack for their actions. People defend them as a way of being against Hamas, but you can be against both of them Even if he is just surveying the area, taking a picture of a child in crosshairs is distasteful, and posting it on the web doubly so.

Case in point, this image is much less atrocious, but I’m sure if I had criticized this image, the discussion would be very different:

Whether he meant to shoot the child or not, posting an image on instagram of a child in crosshairs is disgusting, and I can’t believe it’s defensible.


#17

Even if he is just surveying the area, taking a picture of a child in crosshairs is distasteful, and posting it on the web doubly so.

Assuming for the moment that the pic is genuine look at the picture again. The child is not in the crosshairs of the rifle scope assuming it is a rifle scope). That was the point of my question above, What is wrong in the article title?

… we give Israel an enormous amount of slack for their actions.

Not sure why you made that first-person plural rather than second-person plural, but anyway … I try to consider claims on by both sides of a conflict critically. One aspect of such a critical consideration is how the past behavior of each side affects their credibility. That was the point I made in pointing out, twice, the Mohammed al Dura fakery. I could have added the wild claims by the Arab Palis and their Arab allies that Israelis harvest the internal organs of Palis, have trained vultures to be spies, fauxtoshopping and setting up fauxny “pictures” of the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Lebanon, and mix the blood of Arab children in Passover matzoh. Do I need to point out that every example I cited in the previous two sentences can be documented, very easily? The Arab Palis and their allies have a long, well-established history of crude, slandering fakery targeting Israel.

So, yeah, Trekky, I’m more skeptical of claims made by the Arab Palis and their allies. They’ve worked hard to earn that skepticism, and I probably owe them more skepticism than I give them.


#18

It’s funny, somehow this thread has gone from a sniper targeting a “child” to being distasteful in post a picture. The goalposts be moving! I’m wondering now how the goalposts might be moved with regard to the possibility that the telescope device might not be a rifle telescope at all, and the high likelihood that the “picture” is a fauxtoshop.

… we give Israel an enormous amount of slack for their actions.

Don’t like having to move the goalposts while hoping no one notices? Concerned at the prospects that the supposed rifle scope might have been a non-weapon spotting telescope, and the “picture” might be fauny? Leave the ink-squirting to cephalopods.


#19

Trekky has demonstrated once again that he is an Anti-US, anti-US Ally, terrorist sympathizer that will twist, weave, and troll this site for the sole purpose of flaming. His concern for the child in the scope view is hypocrical when compared to his advocation of mangling unborn babies with the intent of killing them. Of course, this goes back to Pete’s point about his affinity for moving the goal post around to suit his needs at the time. What can you say? He’s a typical Liberal.


#20

I never said the word “target”, if you read the OP. And there’s a cached page of his instagram if you don’t believe the photo is legit. The member is an Israeli sniper, so its very unlikely the picture is fake. But regardless, EVEN IF IT WAS FAKE, what the picture portrays is in and of itself insulting and wrong. It doesn’t matter if it was photoshopped. The picture of the Israeli flag in cross hairs isn’t real, but that doesn’t make the message any less real.

Again, if it was an American soldier in cross hairs, would it be defended? If it was an Israeli symbol in cross hairs, would it be defended this way? There’s a double standard that exists in the Israeli Palestine conflict.

To add, your comments about the child not being in cross hairs is pedantic. He is, even if the sight is not directly on the back of his head, it is exceedingly close.