Israeli forces kill Palestinian along Gaza border

[News_Editor]

Israeli forces kill Palestinian along Gaza border

2011-01-19 12:41:09 GMT+7 (ICT)

GAZA (BNO NEWS) - One Palestinian was killed and two others injured on Tuesday by Israeli forces in the northern Gaza Strip, the Ma'an News Agency reported on Wednesday.

The victim was identified as twenty-year-old Amjad Sami Az-Za'aneen. The two others, who were slightly injured, were transported to the hospital.

Medics said the three men were civilians and that Israeli soldiers launched five shells towards the mainly agricultural area. An Israeli military spokeswoman said the group of men were handling an explosive device.

Meanwhile, local sources said that the men were collecting construction materials near Jabaliya refugee camp when Israeli tanks fire shells at them, Palestine News Network reported.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-01-19

[coma]

Must have been a rather large ' explosive device' if it took 3 boys to handle it. Five tank artillery rounds against a group of 3 20 year old Palistinian boys. Mmm. Please!!!!

[Jingthing]

Must have been a rather large ' explosive device' if it took 3 boys to handle it. Five tank artillery rounds against a group of 3 20 year old Palistinian boys. Mmm. Please!!!!

It would make you more happy if some Israelis got killed instead, it that it?

[Ulysses G.]

Must have been a rather large ' explosive device' if it took 3 boys to handle it. Five tank artillery rounds against a group of 3 20 year old Palistinian boys,

They were transporting explosives. Bad things happen when you play with fire.

[koheesti]

Must have been a rather large ' explosive device' if it took 3 boys to handle it. Five tank artillery rounds against a group of 3 20 year old Palistinian boys. Mmm. Please!!!!

Is there some kind of rule out there where if someone tries to attack you, you can only use an equal amount of force against them? Of course not. Maybe other 20 year old "boys" will think twice next time and live long long enough to become "men".

[chuckd]

If they are old enough to handle explosive devices, they are old enough to suffer the consequences.

[Wallaby]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

Edited January 19, 2011 by Wallaby

[dumball]

'Wallaby' timestamp='1295445260' post='4161943']

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

Should you have had rockets raining down on you for too long a time and saw fellow perpetrators handling what could be another , what would you have done , send them an e-mail , bitch on a forum or just blow them to hell before they did it to you ?

The best form of defence is attack , you wait , you're dead .

[koheesti]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

And you automatically believe it was construction material? Where there is probably no construction going on?

[coma]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

Well said Wallaby. I can clearly see that everybody here is very quick to believe the Israeli side of the story whilst dismissing the Palistinian's version of events. No wonder why they feel as if the world is against them.

I guess if you stonk artillary rounds down range, blowing dirty big holes in the earth and lord knows what else, then it is quite difficult to determine whether there indeed was any explosives at all. Or was their intent ? Surely the IDF have competent snipers deployed that can do the same job much more effeciently. Limiting 'collateral damage'.

.

For Koheesti : Most civilized militarys have things called rules of engagement [ROE]. In those ROE's there is always restrictions on excessive use of force. But like I said. Mostly in civilized militarys. And futhermore. Based on the limited information provided on this incident thus far, one cannot possibly come to the conclusion that the 3 boys were conducting any sort of attack therefore there was NO imminent threat to any IDF members.

[Ulysses G.]

Based on the limited information provided on this incident thus far, one cannot possibly come to the conclusion that the 3 boys were conducting any sort of attack therefore there was NO imminent threat to any IDF members.

Have you ever heard of terrorists planting bombs to be exploded later? Someone in a war zone does not having to be "attacking" to be a serious threat.

[Ulysses G.]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices.

Well said Wallaby. I can clearly see that everybody here is very quick to believe the Israeli side of the story whilst dismissing the Palistinian's version of events. No wonder why they feel as if the world is against them.

I wonder why...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTnumShGWbE

[coma]

Some may do well to use Oneeyedwilly as a user name.

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe in your next incarnation.

[koheesti]

.

For Koheesti : Most civilized militarys have things called rules of engagement [ROE]. In those ROE's there is always restrictions on excessive use of force. But like I said. Mostly in civilized militarys. .

ROE don't say that if someone is firing a pistol at you that you can't use a higher caliber weapon. Airplanes would be outlawed from dropping on soldiers with mere rifles. Tanks would be allowed to only fire on other tanks.

[coma]

.

For Koheesti : Most civilized militarys have things called rules of engagement [ROE]. In those ROE's there is always restrictions on excessive use of force. But like I said. Mostly in civilized militarys. .

ROE don't say that if someone is firing a pistol at you that you can't use a higher caliber weapon. Airplanes would be outlawed from dropping on soldiers with mere rifles. Tanks would be allowed to only fire on other tanks.

You my friend. Have NO idea whatsoever. And clearly have not the slightest bit of knowledge on this particular topic. If you did then you would realise the above post is a pathetic arguement and is totally out of context with in regards to excessive use of force. Excessive use of force means just as it reads. It has nothing do do with what type/ size of the pee shooter one is using. But IMO your arguement is a failure.

I will let you have the last word. As for me the case is

[koheesti]

.

For Koheesti : Most civilized militarys have things called rules of engagement [ROE]. In those ROE's there is always restrictions on excessive use of force. But like I said. Mostly in civilized militarys. .

ROE don't say that if someone is firing a pistol at you that you can't use a higher caliber weapon. Airplanes would be outlawed from dropping on soldiers with mere rifles. Tanks would be allowed to only fire on other tanks.

You my friend. Have NO idea whatsoever. And clearly have not the slightest bit of knowledge on this particular topic. If you did then you would realise the above post is a pathetic arguement and is totally out of context with in regards to excessive use of force. Excessive use of force means just as it reads. It has nothing do do with what type/ size of the pee shooter one is using. But IMO your arguement is a failure.

I will let you have the last word. As for me the case is

Well, we can argue about it all night but in the end, the guy who is out-gunned is the one most likely not to see another birthday. Bring a rock to a gun fight, you're going to lose.

BTW - what Rules of Engagement does Hamas follow?

Edited January 19, 2011 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

BTW - what Rules of Engagement does Hamas follow?

Slaughtering civilians and using women and children as human shields seems to be encouraged under the Hamas "Rules of Engagement".

[Wallaby]

Oh terribly sorry, I thought this thread was about the Israelis slaughtering civilians, not about what you believe Hamas does.

But as for this thread, we all know you don't have an objective view as you have already taken one side without any evidence to support it.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. So no need for me to waste any further time trying to get you to open the other eye.

Enjoy.

[Ulysses G.]

Civilians with bombs are usually called terrorists.

[Ulysses G.]

we all know you don't have an objective view as you have already taken one side without any evidence to support it.

Pot, kettle, black.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

There is more to the incident than just the tank fire. Let's look at the day and the events that preceded the tank fire.

1. Four mortar shells landed in Israeli territory. This is acknowledged by both sides.

2. At 2PM the Gaza militant Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades said that fighters targeted a civilian Israeli vehicle traveling on the main road near the Gaza border town of Kissufim and opened fire directly on the vehicles. This is acknowledged by both sides.

3. And then the tank incident. The Associated Press reports that Israeli forces killed a Palestinian on the Gaza Border after militants set off a bomb. The military said Palestinians detonated an explosive device near troops who were on a routine patrol of the border with Gaza. Soldiers later saw militants handling explosives and opened fire.

Allvoices, a Palestinian based alternative media reports that Israeli forces shot one man dead and injured two others who they said were handling a detonation device for a roadside bomb that exploded beneath a vehicle operating inside Gaza.

I think it is highly unlikely that the deceased was out gathering "construction" materials since the area is barren dirt. Nor do I think he was off for a romantic moment with the two other males that were involved. Some people do not care about the facts and are more interested in finger pointing, Unfortunately, sometimes people that are implicated in dangerous activities end up dead.

Edited January 20, 2011 by geriatrickid

[cdnvic]

Let moderators decide who is and isn't a troll here. Calling people out like that only makes your post disappear. (one post deleted)

[coma]

Let's just hope that someday soon Palastinians can have their own state. After all that is all they want. Then maybe this bickering will finally come to an end.

[Wallaby]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

And you automatically believe it was construction material? Where there is probably no construction going on?

What makes you think I automatically believe the Palestinians version? On the facts available one can only assume. I guess some here actually believe some of what they say and are blinded by their ignorant racist view.

[Wallaby]

Civilians with bombs are usually called terrorists.

You could well be right. But what does your statement have to do with this thread? Where you there at the time? Didn't think so. Another well thought out post from the blind follower.

[geriatrickid]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

And you automatically believe it was construction material? Where there is probably no construction going on?

What makes you think I automatically believe the Palestinians version? On the facts available one can only assume. I guess some here actually believe some of what they say and are blinded by their ignorant racist view.

And what of the events leading up to the incident? There is no denying that there was hostile activity going on at the time in the immediate vicinity. Mortar fire, an attack on civilian vehicles and an attack on an Israeli border patrol all acknowledged by the local militant groups. I believe that if you are patient enough, one of the local groups will claim the deceased as its martyr killed in action. Egypt warned Hamas to stop the attacks and Hamas in turn has asked the militant groups to refrain from the attacks. The resulting activity is political jockeying for position to demonstrate the independence of the various groups.

[siampolee]

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org

Merriam-Webster defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It was the basis of South African apartheid and Nazi "master race" superiority above others, especially Jews.

Israel has no constitution. Basic Laws substitute, including statutes affirming exclusive rights for Jews. One is the right of return, granting them automatic citizenship. Goyim are denigrated and not wanted, especially Arabs. David Ben-Gurion once said:

"This is not only a Jewish state, where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, but a state for all Jews, wherever they are, and for every Jew who wants to be here....This right is inherent in being a Jew." It applies to no one else.

Israel's Law of Citizenship or Nationality Law establishes rules so stringent against non-Jews that many Palestinians in 1948 were denied citizenship, despite family roots going back generations or longer.

On May 5, 2007, Professor Joseph Maddad's Palestine Remembered.com article headlined, "Israel's Right to Be Racist," discussed a "New anti-Semitism," saying:

"Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a Jewish racist state."

Israel will do anything to convince Arabs why it deserves to be racist, he said. It also makes peace provisional on "Palestinians 'recogniz(ing) its right to exist' as a racist state," meaning, at best, they'll be tolerated as lesser beings provided they accept inferiority and remain submissive, relinquishing all rights in return for nothing.

Edited January 20, 2011 by siampolee

[geriatrickid]

I wish I knew what to do to keep some of these threads on topic, free of nasty rhetoric.

Is it so hard to leave out the canned rhetoric that's been posted and reposted on various threads that have eventually been closed because folks can't be civil?

Ok, that's my sad sigh.

[Wallaby]

So we have one side saying they were handling explosive devices and the other side saying they were collecting construction material.

Out of those contrasting views you automatically believe they were handling explosive devices. Hmmm

And you automatically believe it was construction material? Where there is probably no construction going on?

What makes you think I automatically believe the Palestinians version? On the facts available one can only assume. I guess some here actually believe some of what they say and are blinded by their ignorant racist view.

And what of the events leading up to the incident? There is no denying that there was hostile activity going on at the time in the immediate vicinity. Mortar fire, an attack on civilian vehicles and an attack on an Israeli border patrol all acknowledged by the local militant groups. I believe that if you are patient enough, one of the local groups will claim the deceased as its martyr killed in action. Egypt warned Hamas to stop the attacks and Hamas in turn has asked the militant groups to refrain from the attacks. The resulting activity is political jockeying for position to demonstrate the independence of the various groups.

So what? We are commenting on this thread in relation to what is reported in the OP. It is clear that Israel says one thing and Palestine says another.

You can use preceding events to form a particular view, we all do, but it is still only a view, an assumption, sometimes it can be a very good assumption but it is still not fact. Something I'm sure you have argued about on other threads.

After reading the OP and then to comment 'They were carrying explosives' is just something a racist zealot would say having no regard to what may or may not have occured. Just blind hatred of anyone questioning Israel.

From that particular post alone it is easy to see who is actually the more beligerent.