Israeli Forces Target Civilians, Shoot Peaceful Protesters.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103267249.html

If you are a peaceful protestor, you will be targetted. The IDF does not want the facts of life under occupation to get out to the rest of the world.



Australian activist shot by Israelis
October 26, 2003 - 8:22PM

An Australian activist campaigning against Israel's occupation of the West Bank was shot through both legs during an Israeli raid on a refugee camp, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) said today.

Perth university student Joshua Taaffe, 24, was shot through both legs during a night raid by Israeli troops on the Balatta refugee camp on the fringes of Nablus.

Wounded alongside the University of Western Australia law student was American activist Mark Turner, 24, of Boulder, Colorado.

Mr Taaffe later said from a hospital bed in Nablus that he believed Israeli troops deliberately targeted civilians in the camps with live ammunition.

The pair were among several casualties during what proved to be a bloody weekend in Nablus.

The Australian also claimed that Israeli commandos wearing balaclavas stormed the Raffideyeh Hospital in Nablus in the early hours of yesterday morning and threatened himself and Mr Turner.

"Basically we were woken by flashlights mounted on the ends of assault rifles by men wearing ski masks," Mr Taaffe said.

The commandos then proceeded to sweep through the hospital before departing shortly before dawn, he said.

The Perth-based law student, who arrived in the West Bank about a month ago as an activist for the ISM, said the Israelis launched the raid late on Friday night.

After shooting out any streetlights and disabling the camp's generators, "they switched to live ammunition," he claimed.

"What we do is try to make our presence there known to the Israelis so that they cannot act with impunity," Mr Taaffe said.

[a_unique_person]

From a distance of between 30 and 50 metres, the Israelis swept the area with searchlights, which Mr Taaffe said gave away their position.

"The bullet came through a cinder block wall," he said.

It then grazed one thigh before lodging in the other, forcing Palestinian doctors to remove what they later told him was an Israeli military issue 5.56 M-16 round, Mr Taaffe said.

At least one Palestinian wounded by Israeli fire near Nablus at the weekend later died.

The man was identified as Jamal Kadus, 39, by Agence France-Presse.

He was reported to have been shot in the back while walking to work in Nablus yesterday morning from his home in the nearby village of Bureen.

More than 3,500 people have died since the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of land claimed by both sides intensified in September 2000, including 2,669 Palestinians and 849 Israelis.



So can we get over this myth that the IDF has never targetted civilians?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Lies! Lies! Antisemitic lies from a racist! It's not a real news source anyway! Arafat eats babies and you never post about that, which is proof that everything you say is a lie! I bet that Australian guy looked Palestinian anyway! It's war over there, war, don't you understand? Sometimes in a war you have to plug a few babies, journalists and peaceful protesters!

(I just thought that I'd save Skeptic the trouble of posting it...).

[a_unique_person]

Hi Kevin

another Aussie Drinker.

[Mr Manifesto]

Watch this one, a_u_p... I think he might be South Australian.

[Cain]

Pssssssht! Boulder, Colorado. Figures. I bet Mark Turner is a pony-tailed, trail-mix chomping, limp-writsted, bed-wetting, commie-wannabe vegan. Deserves everything he got (and then some).

In the words of Tony on Rachel Corrie's death: my only regret is that I didn't get to run that bitch over myself.

Defenders of human rights among us can probably say the same for Mr. Turner and Mr. Taaffe.

More than 3,500 people have died since the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of land claimed by both sides intensified in September 2000, including 2,669 Palestinians and 849 Israelis.

This gives the impression that more atrocities have been committed by Israel-- but completely fails to take into account the appropriate moral calculus: 1000 Palestinians are not equivalent to even a single Israeli.

[edited for a style]

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So can we get over this myth that the IDF has never targetted civilians?

Well now we know how they manage to make it look like they are not targeting civilians, they use their X-ray vision and target and shoot the civilians through cinder block walls....:rolleyes: This article does not support the conclusion that the IDF targets civilians.

[renata]

You quoted almost the whole article, AUP.

Paragraphs you skipped


Local children responded by throwing stones and at least one molotov cocktail in the dark at the Israeli troops taking up position at one end of a key intersection in Nablus.

Then, Mr Taaffe said, rubber bullets peppered the area, and any available lighting.

Mr Turner and Mr Taaffe then took up position behind a cinder block wall after retreating from the direct line of fire, the Australian said.

He said the pair kept their heads down, and so did not see any muzzle flashes, but were alerted by the sound of the rounds passing overhead that the Israeli troops had switched to live ammunition.

[crackmonkey]

So apparently the 'peaceful protesters' were amongst the rock and molotov-throwing hordes.
Doesn't it just suck when facts get in the way of a perfectly good fantasy?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by renata
You quoted almost the whole article, AUP.

Paragraphs you skipped





Renata, you are a Zionist and an apologist of the Israeli attrocities, you should be ashamed of yourself for reading the whole of the article.

[RPG Advocate]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So apparently the 'peaceful protesters' were amongst the rock and molotov-throwing hordes.
Doesn't it just suck when facts get in the way of a perfectly good fantasy?

Not quite. Keep in mind that, if the article is correct, the IDF committed the first act of aggression in this scenario by destroying the streetlights and generators. Because of this, the Palestinians had the right to retailiate until they were reasonably certain of the safety of person and property.

The article may not support the conclusion that the IDF targets peaceful protestors, it does support the conclusion that the IDF really doesn't care who it hurts in its search for terrorists. All they had to do was say that someone in the camp was "harboring a terrorist" and they have carte blanche to mess with hundreds of people who aren't involved.

There has to be a better way to deal with the PLO and Hamas than this.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate


There has to be a better way to deal with the PLO and Hamas than this.


There is a better way of course but they don't help. As long as they use the civilians in the camps as human shields such incidents will continue to occur.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So can we get over this myth that the IDF has never targetted civilians?

Absolutely! The moment you document it.

You seem unable to make a distinction between civilians getting hurt and civilians being targeted. What you’ve shown us here is a civilian (sort of) getting hurt. That’s the sort of thing that can happen when you make a special effort to visit dangerous places and hang out with people who are very likely to become involved in armed conflict.

[Richard G]

You don't "protest" in the middle of a war zone. I guess a fool might.

[American]

Perth university student Joshua Taaffe, 24, was shot through both legs during a night raid by Israeli troops on the Balatta refugee camp on the fringes of Nablus.

Someone needs to go practice their aim... head shot would have been quicker.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
You quoted almost the whole article, AUP.

Paragraphs you skipped



You aren't allowed to quote whole articles. The paragraphs skipped were not to do with the protestors, but with children attacking an armoured vehicle with rocks and a molotov cocktail.

Other parts skipped were to do with the protestors experiencing the trauma of live ammunition passing over their heads.

What were the armoured vehicles doing there? According to this http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103273843.html , they had been escorting Palestinians to their olive groves past settlers who have attacked them in the past. Perhaps this was their sin.

[shemp]

Ho hum, just another average day in the world's last colony.

Obviously, he was shot not for being a civilian, but for being an Aussie. Can't blame them for that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



There is a better way of course but they don't help. As long as they use the civilians in the camps as human shields such incidents will continue to occur.

Where do you want them to live, in a separate camp with a big sign on it saying "Terrorists Here"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
You don't "protest" in the middle of a war zone. I guess a fool might.

Once again, the "They are idiots" defense. I could say the people killed on that bus coming back from the visit to the Wall were idiots for doing that too. They were in a war zone.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Once again, the "They are idiots" defense. I could say the people killed on that bus coming back from the visit to the Wall were idiots for doing that too. They were in a war zone.

Comparing apples to oranges. Big difference between people who actually live in the war zone than some guy who flew in half way across the globe to protest in the war zone.

[a_unique_person]

It's only because of them that we get to hear about incidents such as this. Otherwise you would only get the impression that all the bad things happen to Israelis and the Palestinians have nothing to complain about at all, and are just the sick, murderous barbarians people like Ed make them out to be.

[Mycroft]

The incident brings to six the number of solidarity volunteers injured or killed by Israeli action in the past year. Last month, three Australian women were injured by a Palestinian suicide bomb.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the ISM until recently, but am I alone in my impression that the purpose of this organization is to recruit western kids to go to Palestine and get hurt?

My cynicism aside, I must say that they are certainly preferable to other forms of protest in the region. If only this kind of protest can grow in popularity and replace the murderous kind, that will truly be an accomplishment.

[a_unique_person]

ISM seem pretty harmless to me, on the whole. They have their protests, and can get pretty emotional about them. But I have never heard of them using any weapons. They don't exist to just send people to Israel and Palestine, though.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's only because of them that we get to hear about incidents such as this. Otherwise you would only get the impression that all the bad things happen to Israelis and the Palestinians have nothing to complain about at all, and are just the sick, murderous barbarians people like Ed make them out to be.

Only because of who? The protesters?

[a_unique_person]

I think you can pretty well guarantee that if these protesters weren't there, we would not have heard of the incident.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you can pretty well guarantee that if these protesters weren't there, we would not have heard of the incident.

Huh?!

That tiny country gets more international press coverage than anyplace in the world. What are you smoking?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Where do you want them to live, in a separate camp with a big sign on it saying "Terrorists Here"?

Why you do this? I mean this is not a serious question, of course I have the option not to answer it but I cannot let such things unanswered.

In Humans' History, only cowards that play the liberators hide behind their wive's skirts.

Tomorrow is a National Holiday here, in the 28th of October 1940 the Italians attacked us and Greece got in WW II.Also that day we celebrate the Greek Resistence.

The Greek Resistence became proverbial for its persistence and its effectiveness.

The Greek guerillas had never hidden in houses of civilians, they didn't even approach villages in order not to risk the lives of unarmed people.

Fighters of Freedom know what to do ,cowards who use their very children as shields do not deserve our respect. Just our pity.

[a_unique_person]

The geography of greece is a lot different, and the resistance fighters were getting support from outside, such as arms. Also, they didn't actually have to beat the Nazis, just annoy them till the real armies turned up.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You aren't allowed to quote whole articles. The paragraphs skipped were not to do with the protestors, but with children attacking an armoured vehicle with rocks and a molotov cocktail.

Other parts skipped were to do with the protestors experiencing the trauma of live ammunition passing over their heads.

What were the armoured vehicles doing there? According to this http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103273843.html , they had been escorting Palestinians to their olive groves past settlers who have attacked them in the past. Perhaps this was their sin.

AUP obfuscates deftly as he is called to task yet again for his habit of posting half-truths.

Oh, and AUP...they ARE idiots. It's not a defense, it's an objective fact. About the nicest thing one could possibly call these idiot "student" human shields is "Terminally Idealistic". A tragedy? Sure. But so is every darkly amusing "Darwin Award" contestant.

Everyone has to die, but dying stupid is the worst. A person deliberately going into a war zone because they think they are ten feet tall and bulletproof...because they believed the propaganda....because they think they are doing great acts...IS IDIOCY.

As usual....Darwin is constantly proven correct. :rolleyes:

-z

[Doubt]

A few minor problems with the story AUP posted.

1.) The person shot through the legs says the IDF shot out streetlights and then “switched to live ammunition”. What does this mean? They shot out the street lights with blanks? Is this hype inserted to show some sort of sinister change of action?

2.) The person in question was shot through a cinder block wall at night. OK, so when did the IDF get superman like x-ray vision?

3.) I wonder about the M-16 bullet passing through a cinder block. I will have to look for more info on that, but the bullet is pretty tiny. Kinetic energy is E = 0.5*m*v^2. Not sure a normal 5.56mm bullet will penetrate a cinder block. (I never had the chance to test such a thing myself.) A 7.62mm bullet may even have problems getting through, depending on the range.

This story is not good evidence of peaceful protesters being targeted. It is also not evidence against it either.

(edited to add a missing "against")

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Doubt

1.) The person shot through the legs says the IDF shot out streetlights and then “switched to live ammunition”.

It could mean the troops switched from rubber to fmj bullets. If you shoot out a streetlight with a metal bullet, you could injure someone farther away if it misses since you are firing up.

Nice to know these peaceniks know so much about militar ammunition.

[renata]

Originally posted by Doubt
[B]A few minor problems with the story AUP posted.

1.) The person shot through the legs says the IDF shot out streetlights and then “switched to live ammunition”. What does this mean? They shot out the street lights with blanks? Is this hype inserted to show some sort of sinister change of action?

Just on the first one, I think he means they were using rubber bullets at first. This was in the paragraphs he did not post, but I did- check my post. I assume it is possible to shoot out the lights with them, but I do not know much about rubber bullets themselves. Other than that, agree with all your points.

edited to add

In this article, it gave this version
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103273843.html


The activists were told that three Israeli armoured vehicles had entered the entrance to the camp and they went out into the street to "establish an international presence" in the hope that this would deter the Israelis from using live ammunition.

Mr Taaffe said that one teenager had already been injured by an Israeli rubber bullet when a molotov cocktail was thrown at an armoured vehicle, missing it.

He said the Israelis then backed out of the camp and shot out the power transformer.

Mr Taaffe said he and Mr Turner were in the partial cover of a low wall when a number of rifle shots passed through it. He rejected the Israeli Defence Force's claim that a curfew was in place or had been declared at the time of the incursion.

Here is another article, it looks like Israelis were shooting rubber bullets at first, and then got attacked with molotov cocktails, retreated. Now, in this kind of shooting, when two people are hiding behind a wall, heads down, away from direct line of fire, is it possible to determine who is shooting at whom, from which direction? In other words, if this bullet is unlikely to have passed through the cinderblock wall, could it have come from the side, or the back?

I note in the original article it said

It then grazed one thigh before lodging in the other, forcing Palestinian doctors to remove what they later told him was an Israeli military issue 5.56 M-16 round, Mr Taaffe said.

In another article,
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_975446.htm

Once they removed it it was very obvious it was not a plastic bullet and the Palestinian Authority police officer identified it as an M-16 bullet," he said.


It seems it is unclear who identified as an M-16 bullet and gave him the caliber, but if he has the bullet, and that itself is unclear from the article, it would be pretty easy to settle this issue.

As to what IDF was doing in Nablus other than employing their Xray vision to seek through cinder block walls and raiding hospitals?

Oh, they were indeed raiding a hospital, which is indeed a violation of international law, but not for Taaffe, as this guy may seemed to imply

The Australian also claimed that Israeli commandos wearing balaclavas stormed the Raffideyeh Hospital in Nablus in the early hours of yesterday morning and threatened himself and Mr Turner.

"Basically we were woken by flashlights mounted on the ends of assault rifles by men wearing ski masks," Mr Taaffe said.

The commandos then proceeded to sweep through the hospital before departing shortly before dawn, he said.



http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771748781&path=!news&s=1045855934842


NABLUS, West Bank - Masked Israeli troops raided two Palestinian hospitals yesterday and arrested two suspected militants.
....

The troops, wearing black ski masks and carrying assault rifles, entered the Nablus hospitals before dawn. They snatched one militant from his hospital bed, where he was in critical condition, and found another in a basement with a pistol in his hand, the army said.

Human-rights groups and Palestinians condemned the raids, fearing hospitals no longer are neutral ground in the ongoing fighting, and saying that international law bans military operations in medical facilities.

The army countered that international law prevents militants from seeking refuge in a hospital.

.....

Arriving in jeeps about 3 a.m., troops swept into the hospitals and confined doctors and other staff to rooms for more than an hour as they kicked open doors in room-to-room searches, witnesses said.

Soldiers entered the intensive-care unit of Anglican Hospital and grabbed Khaled Hamed from his bed. The 25-year-old Hamas militant was badly injured Wednesday when explosives inside a car he was riding in went off accidentally.

Dr. Annan Abdel Hak said Hamed lost two fingers in the blast and suffered bleeding in his brain and light burns on his body.

Hamed was taken in a military ambulance to Beilinson Hospital in central Israel, where he was in stable condition, a military source said. Hamed had planned suicide bombing attacks, the source said.




Additional tidbit, what did they find in Rafidiyeh when they so inconsiderately woke Taaffe up?

http://www.news-leader.com/today/1026-Israelisar-201852.html


Elsewhere in Nablus, troops stormed Rafidiyeh Hospital and arrested an armed member of a militant group with links to Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction.

The military said troops found the man, whom Palestinians identified as Jawad Ishtayeh, 27, hiding in the hospital's cellar.

The army said the man was healthy, and Palestinian security sources said the man was not a patient.


So they took a Hamas activist who was seriously injured when explosives in his car blew up (explosives he needed for what, I wonder?) and transported him via ambulance to another hospital, and they took a healthy armed militant hiding out in another hospital. This is what Taaffe was protesting and trying to stop.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra




Renata, you are a Zionist and an apologist of the Israeli attrocities, you should be ashamed of yourself for reading the whole of the article.

With AUP, you can never trust the articles he gives as "proofs". Tiny, insignificant details--like the fact that the israeli soldiers were targeted with rocks and a molotov cocktail, and that they shot RUBBER bullets back--are conveniently edited "for space".

AUP is the David Irving of selective quotations. Of course, Irving was at least smart enough to mirepresent obscure documents that were hard to find, so it took a while to find out he is a liar and falsifier. AUP, on the other hand...

[DaChew]

A 5.56 round passes through a cinderblock wall? and is still identifiable? The skeptic alarm is going off in my head right now. Going to need to see evidence on that one. Of course now, it may have been a ricochet. But then that would mean the activists were not deliberately targeted. Which can't possibly be true. Can it?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DaChew
A 5.56 round passes through a cinderblock wall? and is still identifiable? The skeptic alarm is going off in my head right now. Going to need to see evidence on that one. Of course now, it may have been a ricochet. But then that would mean the activists were not deliberately targeted. Which can't possibly be true. Can it?

Good call, DaChew...

Soldiers complain that 5.56 fails to penetrate even "light" materials. (http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=18&num=916)

Googling "penetrating power 5.56 bullet" yielded this plus at least a score of other related links in the same vein.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Lies! Lies! Antisemitic lies from a racist! It's not a real news source anyway! Arafat eats babies and you never post about that, which is proof that everything you say is a lie! I bet that Australian guy looked Palestinian anyway! It's war over there, war, don't you understand? Sometimes in a war you have to plug a few babies, journalists and peaceful protesters!

(I just thought that I'd save Skeptic the trouble of posting it...).

A very unimaginative and shrill strawman/ad-hom. It really doesn't deserve a response, but I do wonder Kevin, what Skeptic has done to make you post such an attack. I've read a great many of his posts, and he is usually quite well informed and polite unless goaded.

Your attack seems not only unwarranted, but spiteful and childish.

-z

[Skeptic]

A very unimaginative and shrill strawman/ad-hom. It really doesn't deserve a response, but I do wonder Kevin, what Skeptic has done to make you post such an attack.

Well, it's obviously an attempt at sarcasm, not to be taken literally. Nevertheless, it does fall rather flat.

Of course, part of the "flatness" has to do with the fact that the sarcasm turns out to be partially true: the "smoking gun" evidence DOES turn out, on closer investigation, to be antisemitic lies further distorted by a well-known israel-basher... what a surprise.

I've read a great many of his posts, and he is usually quite well informed and polite unless goaded.

Indeed so. The note outside my cage says, in full:

"Do not disturb the Skeptic. No thrown peanut shells, prodding with sticks, or stupid internet posts, or he'll FLAME you."

"Feeding hours 3-4 p.m daily. Please do not give the Skeptic any food. The zoo takes good care of him, and besides, being a jew, he'll just send it back and complain, like they do in the wild."

[Cleopatra]

AUP!!!

Read THAT please:

Originally posted by renata
So they took a Hamas activist who was seriously injured when explosives in his car blew up (explosives he needed for what, I wonder?) and transported him via ambulance to another hospital, and they took a healthy armed militant hiding out in another hospital. This is what Taaffe was protesting and trying to stop.


Those monsters have blacklashed the fight of the Palestinians and they continue applying their dirty methods JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE IN EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE WHO DEFEND THEM.

Can't you see what they are doing???? Those people do not respect even injured soldiers, they do not respect their children and you want the Israeli army who is an army of citizens to pity them??

Why a soldier who serves his country must be killed from somebody who hides in an abulance? Can you please explain this to me???

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


It could mean the troops switched from rubber to fmj bullets. If you shoot out a streetlight with a metal bullet, you could injure someone farther away if it misses since you are firing up.

Nice to know these peaceniks know so much about militar ammunition.

It could be years of experience being shot at there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Absolutely! The moment you document it.

You seem unable to make a distinction between civilians getting hurt and civilians being targeted. What you’ve shown us here is a civilian (sort of) getting hurt. That’s the sort of thing that can happen when you make a special effort to visit dangerous places and hang out with people who are very likely to become involved in armed conflict.

Civilian, (sort of), = Lefty Commo who deserves to be shot anyway.

So that doesn't count, the IDF still doesn't target civilians.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The Greek guerillas had never hidden in houses of civilians, they didn't even approach villages in order not to risk the lives of unarmed people.


So I guess all that footage of the guerillas firing out of the windows and houses of civilians was just propaganda. Or were they non-civilian houses?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Everyone has to die, but dying stupid is the worst. A person deliberately going into a war zone because they think they are ten feet tall and bulletproof...because they believed the propaganda....because they think they are doing great acts...IS IDIOCY.

As usual....Darwin is constantly proven correct. :rolleyes:

-z

Darwin Award for trying to end a war, I suppose Nelson Mandela and Ghandi were candidates for the Darwin Award too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


With AUP, you can never trust the articles he gives as "proofs". Tiny, insignificant details--like the fact that the israeli soldiers were targeted with rocks and a molotov cocktail, and that they shot RUBBER bullets back--are conveniently edited "for space".

AUP is the David Irving of selective quotations. Of course, Irving was at least smart enough to mirepresent obscure documents that were hard to find, so it took a while to find out he is a liar and falsifier. AUP, on the other hand...

I have already discussed "rubber bullets". We can provide a demonstration of them at TAM2, if you want. You stand ten feet away from me and I will shoot some at you. Care to oblige?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Civilian, (sort of), = Lefty Commo who deserves to be shot anyway.

So that doesn't count, the IDF still doesn't target civilians.

Civilian, (sort of) = a member of an organization that has chosen to take sides in an armed struggle, even thought they themselves do not carry arms (mostly) and restrict their activities to the creation of propaganda.

Some of my best friends are lefty commies, I would never shoot them! :eek:

It doesn't count as targeting civilians because these civilians (sort of) were not targeted. I don't believe you're stupid, how come you can't make that distinction?:hit:

[a_unique_person]

So why where they being shot at?

I have tried to make this distinction before.

If this is a war zone, and shooting at anything you think may be a target is a legitimate tactic, which could well includ civilians, then you can't complain about bombers targetting civilians in Israel. It is not just civilians that are targetted. Members of the IDF are also being killed in this war.

If you think this is not a war, and civilians and the IDF should not be ambushed, then the onus is on the IDF to carry out proper police actions and not shoot indiscriminantly. They need to clearly identify targets, and arrest and try them in a court of law. Firing rockets at cars, which we are always assured contain terrorists, in civilian areas is an act of war. There is no legal process followed.

The latest suicide bomber saw her brother when he was shot, sitting outside having coffee. The IDF were after her cousin who was having the coffee with him.

I have also provided the instance of the woman, a well known peace activist, shot while knitting.

[RPG Advocate]

Cleopatra:

Those monsters have blacklashed the fight of the Palestinians and they continue applying their dirty methods JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE IN EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE WHO DEFEND THEM.

I disagree. Even if no outside forces were supporting them, they would not stop. These extremists see the eradication of every last Jew as a holy mission.

Instead, I think that in order for this terror to end, support from Palestinians is going to have to end. Some moderates have spoken out, but the terror these extremists exert isn't just external. It's internal, also. Any moderate who dares speak out may find themselves dead, labelled an "Israeli sympathizer". The only way I see this ending is for a large coalition of moderates to gain the popular support with a rallying cry of "we will not tolerate any more suicide bombings!" It's hard to squelch a bunch of people at once. This could happen someday, but I think it's a long way off. It's hard to undo 55 years of extremist rhetoric.

Can't you see what they are doing???? Those people do not respect even injured soldiers, they do not respect their children and you want the Israeli army who is an army of citizens to pity them??

Why a soldier who serves his country must be killed from somebody who hides in an abulance? Can you please explain this to me???

If soliders are being attacked by someone hiding in an ambulence, then that soldier has the right of retaliation until he is safe, even if it means killing the attacker. The criticism being levelled here is that the IDF attacks medical vehicles and facilities because there "might" be a terrorist inside. Even if it turns out there is, the ends don't justify the means.

a_unique_person

So why where they being shot at?

I have tried to make this distinction before.

If this is a war zone, and shooting at anything you think may be a target is a legitimate tactic, which could well includ civilians, then you can't complain about bombers targetting civilians in Israel. It is not just civilians that are targetted. Members of the IDF are also being killed in this war.

Civilians are being targetted by the IDF because they can get away with it. Getting away with it doesn't make it right.

Your logic justifying the Palestinian suicide bombs is especially disgusting. The right of retaliation extends only to direct aggressors in the conflict. Are the civilians the Palestinians are blowing up aggressors? NO! The only legitimate targets in this war are IDF soldiers that are engaged in aggressive acts and Palestinian extremists engaged in terrorist activities. Civilians on either side are never legal targets.

If you think this is not a war, and civilians and the IDF should not be ambushed, then the onus is on the IDF to carry out proper police actions and not shoot indiscriminantly. They need to clearly identify targets, and arrest and try them in a court of law. Firing rockets at cars, which we are always assured contain terrorists, in civilian areas is an act of war. There is no legal process followed.

I can actually agree with some of this logic, with one caveat. The Palestinans need to make a good-faith effort to identify those engaging in terrorist activities. Additionally, when they go in to capture these terrorists, Palestinians cannot shoot at the IDF. Anyone shooting at them becomes a legal target and may die. Of course, because the extremists have all the power, anyone making a good-faith effort to help identify terrorists may die, as described above. I don't know how to resolve this problem without endorsing tactics that I find pernicious, unfortunately.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
Cleopatra:



I disagree. Even if no outside forces were supporting them, they would not stop. These extremists see the eradication of every last Jew as a holy mission.

[/b]

They are feeding on the result of nearly 40 years of occupation.




a_unique_person



Civilians are being targetted by the IDF because they can get away with it. Getting away with it doesn't make it right.

Your logic justifying the Palestinian suicide bombs is especially disgusting. The right of retaliation extends only to direct aggressors in the conflict. Are the civilians the Palestinians are blowing up aggressors? NO! The only legitimate targets in this war are IDF soldiers that are engaged in aggressive acts and Palestinian extremists engaged in terrorist activities. Civilians on either side are never legal targets.

[/b]

I don't believe I am justifying anything, just observing the events. More Palestinians have been killed than Israelis, but we hear about only a fraction of those deaths and injuries. Like I said, young women sees her brother who has just been shot for doing no more than sitting next to his cousing who was suspected of being a terrorist, (There was no trial, only a summary execution), she fights back in a similar way, (attacking a coffee shop).

As I pointed out, the IDF is also being attacked. Palestinian civilians are also being attacked. It is a typical war, with outragous acts being committed by both sides. Trying to find the good guy is not really possible, but I am not prepared to let Israel parade around pretending to be the good guy.



I can actually agree with some of this logic, with one caveat. The Palestinans need to make a good-faith effort to identify those engaging in terrorist activities. Additionally, when they go in to capture these terrorists, Palestinians cannot shoot at the IDF. Anyone shooting at them becomes a legal target and may die. Of course, because the extremists have all the power, anyone making a good-faith effort to help identify terrorists may die, as described above. I don't know how to resolve this problem without endorsing tactics that I find pernicious, unfortunately.

The problem for the Palestinians is that to undertake any form of conventional warfare, soldier to soldier, is pretty impossible for them. They have no tanks, aircraft, helicopters, gun ships, artillery, etc. There mere hint that they may be smuggling hand held surface to air missiles sends the IDF into a frenzy.

I don't know how to fix it either.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Doubt
A few minor problems with the story AUP posted.

1.) The person shot through the legs says the IDF shot out streetlights and then “switched to live ammunition”. What does this mean? They shot out the street lights with blanks? Is this hype inserted to show some sort of sinister change of action?

2.) The person in question was shot through a cinder block wall at night. OK, so when did the IDF get superman like x-ray vision?

3.) I wonder about the M-16 bullet passing through a cinder block. I will have to look for more info on that, but the bullet is pretty tiny. Kinetic energy is E = 0.5*m*v^2. Not sure a normal 5.56mm bullet will penetrate a cinder block. (I never had the chance to test such a thing myself.) A 7.62mm bullet may even have problems getting through, depending on the range.

This story is not good evidence of peaceful protesters being targeted. It is also not evidence against it either.

(edited to add a missing "against")

Let's see, an armor piercing or fmj round at 2800 fps, yeah it could penetrate a cinder block. I suppose cinder blocks come in various forms but I'd guess the cheapest grade possible in this case.

This is the famous "tumbling projectile" so named because the velocity is so high for such a small projectile that the projectile wobbles about it's center ever so slightly. This gave rise to a bunch of weird Vietnam "urban legends" like getting hit in the hand by a M-16 round and having it pop out of the your head etc.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Good call, DaChew...

Soldiers complain that 5.56 fails to penetrate even "light" materials. (http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=18&num=916)

Googling "penetrating power 5.56 bullet" yielded this plus at least a score of other related links in the same vein.

I disagree. The .223 fmj penetrates too well. Not enough knockdown power. Gimme an old M1 Garand any day. But then, what the heck do I know?

p.s. Only Euro-trash calls 'em 5.56mm :p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I disagree. The .223 fmj penetrates too well. Not enough knockdown power. Gimme an old M1 Garand any day. But then, what the heck do I know?

p.s. Only Euro-trash calls 'em 5.56mm :p

FYI - Soldiers in the U.S. Army are trained to call them 5.56mm also.

The "penetration" and "knock-down" factors are two different issues. The criticism regarding penetration is specifically referring to non-tissue materials like plaster, glass, wood, sheet metal, brick, etc...

[Skeptic]

So that doesn't count

No, AUP, that won't do.

It "doesn't count" as tageting civilians because the civilian in question was hit from BEHIND A WALL THAT HID HIM FROM SIGHT, and only after the IDF switched from RUBBER BULLETS, for riot dispersing, to real bullets, AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY STONES AND A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL.

Others are merely pointing out that, IN ADDITION to that, the poor, "targeted" civilian is a moron.

But don't let the facts destroy your nice, "israel is evil" theory.

[DaChew]

Let's see, an armor piercing or fmj round at 2800 fps, yeah it could penetrate a cinder block. I suppose cinder blocks come in various forms but I'd guess the cheapest grade possible in this case.

I'm not buying it till I see it. Remember the bullet must not only penetrate the cinder block but also retain enough energy to pierce both legs AND still be identifiable as a 5.56 round. I still think that it's more likely to have been a ricochet.

As for tumbling or wobbling, the 5.56 round is not known for any sort of tumbling or wobbling. That would seriously degrade its accuracy which is in direct contradiction to it's popularity as a long range varmint rifle.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So that doesn't count

AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY STONES AND A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL.



The question then becomes whether or not it is reasonable to respond to children throwing stones and a molotov cocktail with live ammunition?

The British army were met with this type of situation nightly during periods of the Northern Ireland troubles in West Belfast, and the rule was they could only respond with lethal force (i.e live ammunition) if they had a clear shot at someone in the process of throwing a molotov cocktail or nail bomb. In such a case they would fire a single shot directly at the perpetrator.

It seems the Israeli army responded to a few stones and a molotov cocktail with a volley of live ammuntion in the direction of civilian homes.

Even if you can't prove from incidents like these that the Israeli military intentionally targets civilians, i think there is plenty evidence that the IDF show a wilful disregard for civilian life and well-being.

Originally posted by Skeptic
So that doesn't countOthers are merely pointing out that, IN ADDITION to that, the poor, "targeted" civilian is a moron.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his agenda you have to accept that he is a civilian and is entitled to the same rights as any other civilian.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Huh?!

That tiny country gets more international press coverage than anyplace in the world. What are you smoking?

Yes, Israel receives a large amount of press coverage, but does that mean the reporting is always fair and impartial ?

Do the journalists make a real effort to find out what is going on in Palestinian areas? Do they provide balanced coverage of Israeli army operations in the occupied areas? Or are they more likely to accept the latest Israeli government press release and report it as if it were fact?

I'm sure the Afghanistan conflict during the 1980s received much press coverage in Pravda, but was that coverage likely to be balanced? Amount of press coverage does not equate with impartiality of press coverage.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by originalgagster
Do the journalists make a real effort to find out what is going on in Palestinian areas? Do they provide balanced coverage of Israeli army operations in the occupied areas? Or are they more likely to accept the latest Israeli government press release and report it as if it were fact?


You make an excelent point, but it goes both ways. The reporter that reports the latest IDF press release also has contacts within Hamas, the PA, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and whatever other terrorist organization is on his list. How truthful do you think those guys are?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DaChew


I'm not buying it till I see it. Remember the bullet must not only penetrate the cinder block but also retain enough energy to pierce both legs AND still be identifiable as a 5.56 round. I still think that it's more likely to have been a ricochet.

As for tumbling or wobbling, the 5.56 round is not known for any sort of tumbling or wobbling. That would seriously degrade its accuracy which is in direct contradiction to it's popularity as a long range varmint rifle.

There were several bullets being fired. They could have identified them from the numerous ones that would have been there. He may have actually been hit by any of the bullets, even if he felt it was one that penetrated the wall. That is, they felt the bullets going overhead, which means they were close.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So that doesn't count

No, AUP, that won't do.

It "doesn't count" as tageting civilians because the civilian in question was hit from BEHIND A WALL THAT HID HIM FROM SIGHT, and only after the IDF switched from RUBBER BULLETS, for riot dispersing, to real bullets, AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY STONES AND A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL.

Others are merely pointing out that, IN ADDITION to that, the poor, "targeted" civilian is a moron.

But don't let the facts destroy your nice, "israel is evil" theory.

How many IDF have been killed or injured by rocks when in their armoured vehicles? About none?

The IDF was shooting at a target they had not identified. It could have been anyone who just happened to be in the area.

Stones and Molotov cocktail Vs Armour, trained soldiers and automatic weapons.

And he is a moron, apparently.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


How many IDF have been killed or injured by rocks when in their armoured vehicles? About none?

The IDF was shooting at a target they had not identified. It could have been anyone who just happened to be in the area.

Stones and Molotov cocktail Vs Armour, trained soldiers and automatic weapons.

And he is a moron, apparently.

The name "Molotov cocktail" is derived from Vyacheslav Molotov, who was the Foreign Minister and Secretary of War of the Soviet Union during World War II. The soldiers of the Finnish army successfully used Molotov cocktails against Red Army tanks in the two conflicts (Winter War and Continuation War) between Finland and the Soviet Union and coined the term. Molotov cocktails were even mass-produced by the Finnish military, bundled with matches to light them. Petrol bombs have already been used in the Spanish Civil War, sometimes propelled by a sling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

I don't know why we're pretending that these are not real weapons. You can say that rocks are not a threat to armored vehicles, but if they're going to leave the vehicles to fetch a terrorist, they have to deal with the rock throwers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

I don't know why we're pretending that these are not real weapons. You can say that rocks are not a threat to armored vehicles, but if they're going to leave the vehicles to fetch a terrorist, they have to deal with the rock throwers.

The poor IDF, maybe they should take up rocks and Molotov cocktails, and give the armour and automatic weapons to the Palestinians. Then it might be a more even battle.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So that doesn't count

No, AUP, that won't do.

It "doesn't count" as tageting civilians because the civilian in question was hit from BEHIND A WALL THAT HID HIM FROM SIGHT, and only after the IDF switched from RUBBER BULLETS, for riot dispersing, to real bullets, AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY STONES AND A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL.

WHILE ENFORCING A MILITARY OCCUPATION, AS SHARON HAS AGREED IT IS, WHICH IS AN ACT OF WAR.

Cool, I could get to like CAPS.

[crackmonkey]

An 'occupation' that is a response to a sustained wave of bombings and terror. Which is most certainly acts of war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
An 'occupation' that is a response to a sustained wave of bombings and terror. Which is most certainly acts of war.

We have been over this before, it reminds me very much of the chicken/egg debate.

However, the occupation is supposed to be of a buffer zone, but this buffer zone is being settled as fast as possible. Right now, new settlements are being planned and extended. So what's the buffer zone concept for?

[DaChew]

There were several bullets being fired. They could have identified them from the numerous ones that would have been there. He may have actually been hit by any of the bullets, even if he felt it was one that penetrated the wall. That is, they felt the bullets going overhead, which means they were close.

That doesn't matter. The story you posted says this:

"It then grazed one thigh before lodging in the other, forcing Palestinian doctors to remove what they later told him was an Israeli military issue 5.56 M-16 round, Mr Taaffe said"

Palestinian doctors identified the bullet as 5.56. If you believe the Palestinian doctors then the bullet was identifiable AFTER having pierced a cinder block wall. I'm skeptical of that and I'm skeptical of the round piercing a cinder block wall. I'd like to see evidence for both of those issues. IF, as you say, it could have been any of the bullets fired, then it must have been a ricochet as I suggested. Unless you now wish to claim that Israeli bullets turn corners. IF it was a ricochet then it's not likely that the soldiers were targeting the activists.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The poor IDF, maybe they should take up rocks and Molotov cocktails, and give the armour and automatic weapons to the Palestinians. Then it might be a more even battle.

I also fail to understand how the military superiority of one side or the other is relevant in a discussion of their issues.

If someone tries to kill me with a baseball bat and I'm armed with a gun, am I wrong simply because I'm better armed? If in defending myself I kill my attacker, am I wrong simply because the body count is in my favor? If a policeman (armed with a gun) is trying to apprehend a criminal armed with a knife, would you expect the policeman to put his gun away in order to be fair to the criminal?

It seems to me that having both sides evenly armed and equipped is a recipe for more death and bloodshed, not less.