News Israeli forces massacre protesters in Rafah

[Adam]

Israeli forces have fired on thousands of Palestinians peacefully protesting in the occupied Gaza Strip, leaving up to 20 dead and dozens injured.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/130B11F6-E96E-4B3B-93CB-55DDC8CE7FCF.htm

ISRAELI forces fired a missile and a tank shell today near a large crowd of Palestinians demonstrating against the invasion of a neighbouring refugee camp, Israeli security officials said.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9610399%255E401,00.html

The IDF and the Israeli government need to be exterminated.

 

[kat]

Photo and IDF statement on Gaza incident

A large procession of several hundreds demonstrators, among them gunmen, organized by the Palestinian Authority, left central Rafah along the main road towards IDF forces in Tel-Sultan.

As the crowd, with the gunmen among them, drew near IDF forces, a warning fire of a single missile was fired from a helicopter into an open area, not towards the demonstrators.

In addition, flares were fired in the air to deter the crowd and to prevent endangering the demonstrators. As this did not deter the crowd and they continued to converge on the troops, machine gun fire was opened towards a wall of an abandoned structure along the side of the road and then four tank shells were fired at this abandoned structure.

It is possible that the causalities were a result of the tank fire on the abandoned structure. The details of the incident continue to be investigated.

It should be mentioned that the scene of the incident is an area of combat and an area of frequent exchanges of fire. The road has been rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians. The IDF has not yet cleared the road of these explosives.

At this stage it is difficult to determine the cause of the civilian casualties. The incident is being investigated thoroughly at this time.

 

[Adam]

I would be wary of that particular website, which has a stated pro-Israel bias.

 

[Jake]

I'd be less wary of that website than Al aljazeera :shy:

Here is an updated article:




http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1084677182465

"No soldier or no commander gave or received orders to fire directly at civilians," said Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon.
...
According to IDF officers, among the crowd of men, women, and children, a number of armed Palestinians were spotted. As they approached the Girit outpost, a helicopter fired one missile into an open area not far from the demonstrators as a warning for them to turn back. According to footage taken from the helicopter and drones, the missile exploded far from the demonstrators in an open area and no one was hit.

Undeterred, the protesters continued and the helicopter then fired flares into the open area ahead of them, which also failed to stop the crowd. Then soldiers directed machine-gun fire at the wall of an abandoned building as another warning.

When this failed to stop the crowd, a tank fired four shells at the same building and apparently one of the shells caused an explosion that hit demonstrators.

Yaron said the footage of the entire incident taken from the helicopter and drones is still being studied, but noted that shortly after the tank fired a number of shells there was an explosion. The road used by the protesters was strewn with bombs placed by terrorists against soldiers, she said.

 

[jcsd]

ah the IDf exhonrates itself, there's a suprise.

 

[kat]

Film was to be released asap.

and then this:
10 killed as terrorists use human shields

Aerial video surveillance of the area shows an Israeli Apache gunship fired a warning missile into an empty field in order to deter the procession, according to an official statement released by the IDF.

When the mob continued to move on Israeli soldiers, field commanders, fearing a major assault on their troops that would have turned into a bloody pitched battle, directed machine gun fire and four tank shells at an abandoned building near the "Palestinians."

At that point several people were killed and many more wounded, but the IDF Spokesman said after reviewing the surveillance tapes it seemed highly unlikely the casualties were caused by Israeli fire.

The army did note the path taken by the mob was an area "rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians."

It seems the truth will come out in the surveillence tapes, let's see how many media sites put up corrections if the IDF is telling the truth...I'm betting few to none (as usual).

 

[Adam]

I'd be less wary of that website than Al aljazeera :shy:

Why? What's wrong with Al Jazeera?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Al Jazeera IS NOT Subject to Censorship

Al Jazeera show graphic images of the reality of war and conflict.
ie. What happens when an Apache Attack helicopter blows an infant to bits.

That is what is wrong with Al Jazeera (Westerners can't stomach blood and guts). An example is the beheading of the American worker in Iraq. What pussies. Thats nothing compared to "Daisy-cutters" and "Improved Napalm". That beheading was daytime television, rated G, compared to the scale of violence and horror caused by USA/Israeli weaponary.

 

[Adam]

I think some people have a reflexive bias against anything with "Al" in the title. It says a lot about them.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Yep

Yep.
You can usually tell a guy who knows NOTHING about a subject, by the way he can't even spell it.

I'd bet he has NEVER even sussed the mighty Al Jazeera out.
It's not a FOX Monopoly, so Rupert can't control it's Agenda.

 

[Adam]

That is one of the things I really like about Al Jazeera: they provide a LOT of pictures of the scene, for evidence.

 

[Janitor]

Question for Adam.

When a period of weeks or months go by without any killing over there, and then there is an incident in which people are killed, is it your impression that the perpetrators are usually Palestinians, or are they usually Israelis?

 

[Jake]

Yep.
You can usually tell a guy who knows NOTHING about a subject, by the way he can't even spell it.

Usually, not always. Excuse me if If I make a typo on a name that I rarely, if ever type

I think some people have a reflexive bias against anything with "Al" in the title. It says a lot about them.

I hope you don't make that assumption about me :) My comment was really just a counter to the assumption that mediabackspin is biased, just because a group generally agrees with Israel does not mean its facts are wrong. If people can have a reflexive bias against something with "Al" in the name, then people can also have a reflexive bias against something that seems pro-Israel ;)

 

[Adam]

When a period of weeks or months go by without any killing over there, and then there is an incident in which people are killed, is it your impression that the perpetrators are usually Palestinians, or are they usually Israelis?

I simply look at the reported numbers of civilian deaths. The IDF has killed more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian extremists have killed Israeli civilians.

 

[Adam]

I hope you don't make that assumption about me :) My comment was really just a counter to the assumption that mediabackspin is biased, just because a group generally agrees with Israel does not mean its facts are wrong. If people can have a reflexive bias against something with "Al" in the name, then people can also have a reflexive bias against something that seems pro-Israel ;)

As I said, Mediabackspin has a STATED pro-Israel bias. My opinion does not factor into that. It's there for all to see.

 

[Jake]

As I said, Mediabackspin has a STATED pro-Israel bias. My opinion does not factor into that. It's there for all to see.

bias makes it sound like there's some unfairnes in their opinions/facts. From what I can find on their site, they don't seem to call themselves bias.

This is their about clause:

HonestReporting is a fast-action website dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage. We scrutinize the worldwide media for anti-Israel bias, then alert and enable subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned. HonestReporting has over 55,000 subscribers worldwide, and is growing daily.

 

[studentx]

the fact is, there is a report about the IDF having killed civilians OR it being the result of a palestinian mine detonating. Adam choose to believe it was the IDF without proof. Bias proven.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What good does it do to say, "The Israelis are the bad guys," or "The Palestinians are the bad guys"?

 

[Adam]

Actually I provided links to sites with pictures of the damage.

 

[Adam]

Like this: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8C83A57F-FA38-41FE-970E-D9E65A762853.htm

Check the link on the right, where it says "In Pictures".

 

[Simon666]

I would be wary of that particular website, which has a stated pro-Israel bias.

Yes indeed, there were no masked gunman. They throw that line in whenever they want a good excuse for mistakingly (or deliberately?) killing scores of innocents, whether there actually are masked gunmen or not.

 

[Simon666]

the fact is, there is a report about the IDF having killed civilians OR it being the result of a palestinian mine detonating. Adam choose to believe it was the IDF without proof. Bias proven.

You have the report about the possibility of a Palestinian mine or you just like to excuse killing women and children?

 

[Hurkyl]

The IDF has killed more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian extremists have killed Israeli civilians.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact Israeli civilians don't tend to things like march on military positions and ignore warning shots.


I wonder if those arguing against Israel in this thread would retract their statements if it turns out to be a Palestinian mine after all?

 

[Simon666]

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact Israeli civilians don't tend to things like march on military positions and ignore warning shots.

Sure, if you see a demonstration, and they ignore warning shots, it is the right of a democratic nation to shoot them, ok?

 

[Adam]

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact Israeli civilians don't tend to things like march on military positions and ignore warning shots.

Ah, so it's the civilian victims' fault for getting shot?

I wonder if those arguing against Israel in this thread would retract their statements if it turns out to be a Palestinian mine after all?

Not really. Israel's crimes are many. They have been doing all this thenic cleansing stuff for a long time. The UN keeps trying to do something about it, but the USA blocks every resolution attempt.

 

[jcsd]

Kat, do you expect as to take seriously a site that uses the wiord "Palestinians" in quotation marks, rthere were cameras on the ground when the explosion hapopend and there is no evidnece of any gunmen. It's alo worth noting that there isn't a field particularly close to that South Street where the march took place.

 

[jcsd]

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact Israeli civilians don't tend to things like march on military positions and ignore warning shots.


I wonder if those arguing against Israel in this thread would retract their statements if it turns out to be a Palestinian mine after all?

This is the streets where the Palestinians live, Israel shouldn't even be in the West Bank or Gaza in the first pklace and I'll remind you that almost exactly the same thing happened a couple of years ago in Israel except that the Palestianins who were shoot were also citizens of Israel.

The fact is the Israeli army has long history of lying circumstances like this for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1220635,00.html

Also in the case of Tom Hurndall the IDF claimed that there was a Palestinian gunman, despite the fact that the whole incident was caught on film which showed the IDF spoikesman was lying completely. EVEntually under sustained diplomatic pressure from the UK the soldier responsible was charged, his defnce was that he couldn't be charged with murder because although he was shooting at the children Tom was trying to rescue he said he didn't care if they hit or missed!

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, if you see a demonstration, and they ignore warning shots, it is the right of a democratic nation to shoot them, ok?

Ah, so it's the civilian victims' fault for getting shot?

No. It's the civilians' fault for being someplace they should not, and not removing themselves after being given all due warning.

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to remove people from places where they shouldn't be?

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to protect its people from harm when possible?

Do civilians have a right to march onto a military position?

That's it with the philosophical questions that are relevant to this (and many other) situations. My answers are yes, yes, and no. What about yours?

Continuing on, let's consider these further questions in relation to this situation:

Was the crowd marching onto a military position?

If the crowd was close enough, would they pose a credible threat to the Israeli military?

What means did the military have to remove the crowd?

What means did they use?

My answers: Yes. Yes. Threat or application of military force. Threat of military force.

Not really. Israel's crimes are many. They have been doing all this thenic cleansing stuff for a long time. The UN keeps trying to do something about it, but the USA blocks every resolution attempt.

Right. So you're saying that it is perfectly all right to make false accusations (without apology or retraction), as long as you're doing it about someone bad?

 

[adrenaline]

This is the streets where the Palestinians live, Israel shouldn't even be in the West Bank or Gaza in the first pklace ...!

Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the Six day war. I believe the Gaza Strip was won from Egypt and I think in 1973, Egypt declared war in an attempt to win back the land it lost to Israel (this may have included gaza and Sinai but I'm not sure) during the Six day war in 1967 and got their asses kicked again. The latter was called the Yom Kippur War.

 

[Adam]

No. It's the civilians' fault for being someplace they should not, and not removing themselves after being given all due warning.

They shouldn't be walking the streets? Wow. Sounds like the KKK-type attitude toward black people in the USA fifty years ago.

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to remove people from places where they shouldn't be?

No, not really. It's the right and duty of a "democratic" nation for people to be where they want.

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to protect its people from harm when possible?

By blowing up loads of unarmed civilians?

Do civilians have a right to march onto a military position?

Do those military positions have the right to set up shop in civilian neighbourhoods and start shooting civilians?

Was the crowd marching onto a military position?

The crowd was walking in a public street.

If the crowd was close enough, would they pose a credible threat to the Israeli military?

Fear on the part of the IDF is not a justification for killing civilians.

What means did the military have to remove the crowd?

They had no right to remove the crowd, thus the question is irrelevent.

What means did they use?

Violence.

Right. So you're saying that it is perfectly all right to make false accusations (without apology or retraction), as long as you're doing it about someone bad?

There has been no false accusation. Thus your point is irrelevent. Again.

 

[Simon666]

No. It's the civilians' fault for being someplace they should not, and not removing themselves after being given all due warning.

It was a public street in their city.

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to remove people from places where they shouldn't be?

Not by killing them and not from places that do not belong to you.

Is it not the right (and duty) of a democratic nation, or any other, to protect its people from harm when possible?

Oh sure, those dangerous unarmed protesters mean us harm. Kill! Kill! Kill!

Do civilians have a right to march onto a military position?

They sure do. They do not have the right to step onto military domains. Last time I checked, a public street is not a military domain.

 

[Zero]

I think we're done here...again!