This is the cold blooded execution of Mahmoud Saleh by Israeli Police:

The Israeli police claimed that Mahmoud Saleh was a suicide bomber who they had no choice but to shoot dead because he was going to blow himself up.

Let's see how reliable the Israeli's are.

http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah01.jpg
First, they arrest Mahmoud Saleh and his friend and handcuff them.
http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah02.jpg
Then they force Mahmoud Saleh and his friend to the ground with his hands still cuffed.
http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah03.jpg
Then according to witnesses more than half an hour later they let Mahmoud Saleh's friend go and start shooting in the air to stop people from watching them. What do they have planned next for Mahmoud Saleh? Arrest? A beating? No...
http://www.palaestina.ch/images/mah04.jpg
They strip Mahmoud Saleh down to his underwear to make sure that he has no weapons or bombs and then hold him down. An Israeli police officer then draws his pistol and shoots Mahmoud Saleh in the head from about 1.5m away, executing him without a trial.
http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah05.jpg
As you can see, there was obviously no bomb and he was still handcuffed at the time of shooting..

He was fully subdued for more than half an hour before the Israeli's shot him, they searched him, cuffed him and still executed him..

Yet they claimed they had no choice as he was about to blow himself up..

THAT is how reliable the Israeli's are. THAT is how they treat the Palestinians as subhuman, THAT is how they execute people for fun with no need to.

Inconclusive. There is dispute over the timing or sequence of the photos. Also, you've posted only 5 photos whereas I've seen 7 including a robot dragging away or disarming a bomb belt and Saleh's friend being led away. There are supposed to 11 photos. Where are the other 4?

---

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:37am:

Inconclusive. There is dispute over the timing or sequence of the photos. Also, you've posted only 5 photos whereas I've seen 7 including a robot dragging away or disarming a bomb belt and Saleh's friend being led away. There are supposed to 11 photos. Where are the other 4?

Inconclusive my foot.

They didn't arrest his friend, even if they did that really isn't too relevant. If anything releasing him would have been a better thing to do.

Think about it this way, they had him subdued and held him down to the ground for more t han 30 minutes, he was stripped to his underwear BEFORE they shot him and when he was stripped down it was obvious he had no bomb belt. Where could he have hidden it? In his jocks?

It's obvious the Israeli's executed him when they didn't have to.

The source of the story is Panama News. They've quoted the Israeli version from The Los Angeles Times and the Palestinian version from France Press.

Israeli version of the incident:


Quote:

...at least three police officers struggled with Salah, held him face down and pulled off his shirt and pants. A bomb squad expert arrived and tried to defuse the explosive, but Salah rolled around trying to press the trigger button on his stomach against the cement, according to police. Finally, the officers shot Salah in the head. Palestinian activists accused the officers of executing him in cold blood, saying he was under control when he was shot. Israeli police, however, said the officers fired because they feared he would ignite the explosives. They argued that police hope to capture suspected bombers alive to assist their investigations. A prosecutor's inquiry found no wrongdoing and the case was closed, according to Gil Kleiman, a national police spokesman."

Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (LAW) of the incident:


Quote:

However, accounts by eyewitnesses contradict the version given by the Israeli police. According to France Press, 12 Palestinians witnessed the incident from their homes. They asserted that Mahmoud Salah was handcuffed when he was killed. An eyewitness reported to LAW as follows: On Friday, 8 March 2002, at 4 p.m., I heard noises outside the building where I live, which is Project 3 of the Nusseibeh Buildings in Beit Hanina. I looked out of the window that overlooks the road in front of the building; the road is only about 8 meters away. I saw how a military jeep stopped the two men. .... Randy was taken at 4.15 p.m. in a military jeep to an unknown destination. Mahmoud was forced to lie flat on his face and had his hands cuffed behind his back. The special [police] unit tore down Mahmoud's clothes. He was wearing a light navy blue jacket and a yellow shirt and a dark yellow cotton pair of pants. I didn't see any bags with Mahmoud as Israelis claim. I heard how he was questioned about his name and the place of residence. I understood that he was from Nablus and that his name was Mahmoud. There were three members of the special [police] unit surrounding the guy on the ground; they were dressed in dark gray. One of them placed his foot on the guy's head and another was holding his feet and a third was sitting on his knees pointing a gun at him from a distance of approximately 1.5 -2 meters. At around 4.30 p.m., the third member shot the guy eight or nine times in the head. Then they left the place and left the guy bleeding. The guy was trying to move and to stand up. At around 5.15 p.m. he stopped moving. At around 5.20 p.m. Israeli police brought a robot, which drew a black belt. The strange thing is that I did not see that belt when the police tore down the guy's clothes before he was killed. .... The victim's fingerprints were then taken and photos of the corps were taken. An Israeli ambulance took the victim away from the scene of the incident.

Nb. Palestinian version is edited a little to fit into one post. However, you can read the full version from the link.
Source: http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08/issue_08/letters_01.html


You fail to disclose Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade confirming that Mahmoud Salah was a suicide bomber.

Here's why it is inconclusive. Can you definitely confirm that he wasn't trying to detonate the bomb while on the ground? You say that "obviously there was no bomb". Can you definitely confirm that? If not, then what was the robot doing?

If I, a neutral without bias (and with empathy for the Palestinians) cannot be convince either way which side is telling the truth then how can you expect people who already have hardened views to believe you. Your conclusion (like Sprint's) is preconcieved from your allegiances. You (like Sprint) only see and believe what you want to see and believe.

You strike me as an intelligent and well researched person (particularly when it come to the Qur'an). Therefore, I am surprised that you fail to disclose such obvioucs details such as that he was a confirmed suicide bomber (and not as innocent has you would have us believe) and missed an apparently damning photo such as the robot? If there are different versions of the incident then lets see the other 4 pictures. Who are you trying to convince?

Interesting that you left out the robot photo Malik, and the fact that a terrorist group admitted he was a suicide bomber. Did it not fit with your propaganda? How can you sensibly deal with potential suicide bombers? Jump on them? It seems to me that it is you who is regurgitating propaganda unquestioningly.

Have you found any evidence yet of Israelis shooting at school children for sport?

No, he wasn't confirmed to be a suicide bomber, he was confirmed to be a part of the Al-Aqsa's Martyrs brigade, they don't only do suicide bombing they also take part in other types of conflicts.

The AFP article states that: "According to Israeli security sources, Salah was wearing a large overcoat and policemen opened fire when he refused to take it off." Yet Saleh is depicted both alive and in his underwear in image number 3. No bomb can be found. It just shows that the Israeli report, like others are a pack of lies to justify their executions of Palestinians.

In none of the pictures could you actually see that bomb belt strapped to him, even when they bent him over it's obvious there was nothing on his back, when they stripped him down it was obvious there was nothing strapped to him.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:40am:

Interesting that you left out the robot photo Malik, and the fact that a terrorist group admitted he was a suicide bomber. Did it not fit with your propaganda? How can you sensibly deal with potential suicide bombers? Jump on them? It seems to me that it is you who is regurgitating propaganda unquestioningly. Have you found any evidence yet of Israelis shooting at school children for sport?

I've seen the robot photo before but could not find it today.

Either way it's obvious that there was actually nothing strapped to Mahmoud Saleh by the series of pictures before and after they stripped him down.

Why are all the published shots of him standing up obscured? Coincidence?

WTF is that black thing around his lower back?

http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah03.jpg

WTF is that black thing just on the other side of his lower torso?

http://www.palaestina.ch/images/Mah05.jpg

... which, BTW, is missing in the shot with the robot dragging away a black thing:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/001.JPG

in that photo with the robot, is the guy still handcuffed, while his head was blown off?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:47am:

No, he wasn't confirmed to be a suicide bomber, he was confirmed to be a part of the Al-Aqsa's Martyrs brigade, they don't only do suicide bombing they also take part in other types of conflicts.

Nevertheless, they are an organisation with lethal tactics and therefore he was not as innocent as you would have us believe. I only have your word that he wasn’t confirmed as a suicide bomber. Can you provide proof?


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:47am:

The AFP article states that: "According to Israeli security sources, Salah was wearing a large overcoat and policemen opened fire when he refused to take it off." Yet Saleh is depicted both alive and in his underwear in image number 3. No bomb can be found. It just shows that the Israeli report, like others are a pack of lies to justify their executions of Palestinians.

This is still inconclusive. It’s just a case of “He says, he said” – “your word against mine” etc. That is why there is dispute over the sequence of the photos. Where are the other 4 missing ones?


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:47am:

In none of the pictures could you actually see that bomb belt strapped to him, even when they bent him over it's obvious there was nothing on his back, when they stripped him down it was obvious there was nothing strapped to him.

Well, I’m no experts on bomb belts but since we’re all speaking hypothetically here…. perhaps the bomb belt strap was cut from his back while he was lying face down. Therefore, the belt would still be on his chest – he would still be lying on it (obscured by his body; from the photo). According to the Israeli version he tried to roll around to detonate the bomb (still under him) causing them to shoot him.

Hypothetically speaking.

Yes he was still handcuffed while they did.

I've seen the robot pic, it's dragging something away, but there is no evidence that it's a bomb belt at all, it could be the big overcoat they said he was wearing and refusing to take off, in fact everything they've done contradicts standard operating procedures of the Israeli police and military if it was a bomb vest on. They would have cleared the area around him from people and not stood around in the pictures you can see watching so closely. Obviously one thing you don't know about the Israeli army is that if he actually had a bomb vest on, they'd have blown his head off straight away on seeing it, they don't mess around with stuff like that and you can be damned sure that they'd never have gotten that close to him.

The thing you're missing is that the Israeli's claimed he refused to take his big overcoat off and that's why they shot him in the head..

Was he wearing a big overcoat when he was shot?

Yes GSS, he does appear to still be handcuffed.

Malik, it appears from the sequence of photos that they did clear the area and shoot him when they realised he had a bomb vest on. You can't put together a time line from a few random photos, especially if they are provided by a source that deliberately leaves out the photos that don't fit their propaganda campaign.

If you are going to bomb innocent Israeli civilians, you have to expect the army to take a hard line.

well, if his handcuffed, then it looks more like an execution.

if he wasn't handcuffed, then u could argue that the Israeli's thought he had a bomb that he was going to detonate......so they had to act quickly as it was a "life or death" situation.

but if his handcuffed, then that means he was already sub-dued, and didn't pose a threat.....if he was accussed of being a terrorist, then they should have arrested him. but to shot him while handcuffed, then the Israeli soliders are playing cop, judge and executioner.

GSS, would you be happy holding down a struggling suicide bomber with a live bomb strapped to their chest?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:26am:

GSS, would you be happy holding down a struggling suicide bomber with a live bomb strapped to their chest?

how's he going to detonate the bomb while handcuffed??

By rolling onto the trigger, or setting it off some other way. I'm not an expert on explosives, but as far as I know if you handle them roughly you risk setting them off. You wouldn't go to all the trouble of strapping a bomb to your chest and killing yourself without considering how to respond to a situation like that.

GSS wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 11:26am: GSS, would you be happy holding down a struggling suicide bomber with a live bomb strapped to their chest? how's he going to detonate the bomb while handcuffed??

I don't know? Do you? Do you know how bomb belts work? The Israeli version was that he was rolling back and forth as if trying to detonate the bomb whilst lying on it. That's why I said to Malik that it's inconclusive based on a 7 photos which is part of a sequence of 11.

still, they didn't need to kill him.......they could have hit him on the head to knock him out?

and from one of the photos above, they are clearly holding him down.....so they could have stopped him rolling over/trying to detonate the bomb without killing him.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

By rolling onto the trigger, or setting it off some other way. I'm not an expert on explosives, but as far as I know if you handle them roughly you risk setting them off. You wouldn't go to all the trouble of strapping a bomb to your chest and killing yourself without considering how to respond to a situation like that.

I was in the Army Engineers Reserves for 2 years during my teens. We were taught how to handle explosives. It depends on the explosive. Some will explode if handled incorrectly, most will explode roughly. Some specialised military explosives are highly stable until triggered (eg: plastics).

still, they didn't need to kill him.......they could have hit him on the head to knock him out?

Have you ever seen what happens when you hit someone in the head that hard? They don't always just stop moving like in the movies. They are just as likely to go into wild spasms. If the guy did have a bomb belt on, emptying a clip into him was the only option. According to the account Malik posted, he continued moving for about 20 minutes after they filled his head with bullets.

And no, you can't stop someone from trying to roll over as easily as you make out. Pinning him down that hard would be just as likely to set off the bomb.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:46am:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 11:35am: By rolling onto the trigger, or setting it off some other way. I'm not an expert on explosives, but as far as I know if you handle them roughly you risk setting them off. You wouldn't go to all the trouble of strapping a bomb to your chest and killing yourself without considering how to respond to a situation like that. I was in the Army Engineers Reserves for 2 years during my teens. We were taught how to handle explosives. It depends on the explosive. Some will explode if handled incorrectly, most will explode roughly. Some specialised military explosives are highly stable until triggered (eg: plastics).

The Palestinians don't have military grade explosives, they make their own which are not very stable at all.

If they do by chance get their hands on some they'll use it as an IED against Israeli tanks instead..

They certainly wouldn't use it in a suicide vest.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:51am:

still, they didn't need to kill him.......they could have hit him on the head to knock him out? Have you ever seen what happens when you hit someone in the head that hard? They don't always just stop moving like in the movies. They are just as likely to go into wild spasms. If the guy did have a bomb belt on, emptying a clip into him was the only option. According to the account Malik posted, he continued moving for about 20 minutes after they filled his head with bullets. And no, you can't stop someone from trying to roll over as easily as you make out. Pinning him down that hard would be just as likely to set off the bomb.

yes, i have seen people get knocked out......if not totally knocked out, at the very least they are dazed and less mobile.

no sorry, i haven't seen any go into spasms......maybe it depends on how u hit them. i'm pretty sure the Israeli army would be trained on hand-to-hand combat and on how to knock a person unconscious.

It is not an option for a suicide bomber. No soldier is going to get himself blown up to avoid killing the enemy.

GSS wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:56am:

no sorry, i haven't seen any go into spasms......maybe it depends on how u hit them. i'm pretty sure the Israeli army would be trained on hand-to-hand combat and on how to knock a person unconscious.

We don't know who they are. Are they army or police? If army are they career soldiers or university students doing their national service? How well are they trained? I know 3 Israelis who did their national service - it was essentially basic training for a few months, here take this gun, now get out there!

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:52am:

The Palestinians don't have military grade explosives, they make their own which are not very stable at all.

Yes, I thought so. This would answer GSS' question about how one can detonate an explosive charge by rolling around.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 12:01pm:

It is not an option for a suicide bomber. No soldier is going to get himself blown up to avoid killing the enemy.

why is it not an option??

knocking the person out removes the threat of the bomber trying to detonate the bomb.

they didn't need to kill him.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:40am:

Have you found any evidence yet of Israelis shooting at school children for sport?

Israeli's shoot at ANY palestinian for sport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOkz_UeKl5U

Palestinian Children being used as Human Shields:
Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4013962237592466110&ei=m9eHSLD7H5DCqAOMw6m8CA&hl=en
Part 2http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5881979602831541786&ei=m9eHSLD7H5DCqAOMw6m8CA&hl=en
Part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=98354005875877909&q=israeli+children&ei=m9eHSLD7H5DCqAOMw6m8CA&hl=en
http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/blogpages/fadi_sharha_files/image001.jpg
http://attendingtheworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/palestinian-boy-as-human-shield-by-nazionists.jpg

Israeli's shooting tank shells at unarmed kids:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=479551240896755247&q=israeli+children&ei=m9eHSLD7H5DCqAOMw6m8CA&hl=en

Israeli Rules of Engagement:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7054071022778382041&q=israeli+rules+of+engagement&ei=I9-HSPTwIorsrQOr_-zNCA&hl=en


Quote:

24 Nov. 04: Rules of Engagement and Lack of Accountability Result in Culture of Impunity for Palestinian Civilian Deaths The circumstances surrounding the killing of Iman al-Hams are grave. However, the large number of Palestinian civilians killed indicate that her death is not unusual. What is unusual about this case, however, is the fact that the IDF initiated a Military Police investigation that led to an indictment. There is no such accountability for the vast majority of Palestinian civilian deaths. Iman al-Hams, a twelve year-old girl, was shot and killed on 5 October 2004 while walking to school in the Rafah refugee camp. The company commander who shot her claimed that he acted in accordance with regulations, and the IDF Chief of Staff accepted the commander's version of events. Only after soldiers from the company told the press that the commander had "verified" her death (pumping her body with bullets from close range) did the Military Police initiate an investigation. The company commander has now been charged with illegal use of his weapon and obstruction of justice. According to B'Tselem's data, since the beginning of the intifada, IDF soldiers have killed at least 1,656 Palestinians who took no part in the fighting. Of those killed, 529 were children. Many of these deaths result from changes in the Rules of Engagement, which now allow soldiers to open fire on Palestinians in a variety of non-combat situations, even when the soldiers are not in danger. The most blatant example is the order to open fire whenever Palestinians enter so-called "danger zones," including the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip, and areas around military bases and settlements. An equally troubling phenomenon, however, is the climate of impunity in which these deaths take place. Over the past four years, the IDF conducted only 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, only 22 resulted in indictments. To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian. Thus in the vast majority of cases, no one is ever held accountable. The combination of rules of engagement that encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers together with the climate of impunity results in a clear and very troubling message about the value the IDF places on Palestinian life. B'Tselem calls on the Israeli government to cancel the orders allowing indiscriminate gunfire and to open a Military Police investigation into every death of a Palestinian who did not participate in hostilities. B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel petitioned the Israeli High Court in September 2003 with a similar demand. The High Court has yet to rule on this petition.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:21am:

Yes he was still handcuffed while they did. I've seen the robot pic, it's dragging something away, but there is no evidence that it's a bomb belt at all, it could be the big overcoat they said he was wearing and refusing to take off....

Where was the overcoat when he was still alive and forced to kneel on the ground? It's not in the picture. Why did it suddenly appear after he was shot and requires a robot to remove it?


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:21am:

They would have cleared the area around him from people and not stood around in the pictures you can see watching so closely.

The photos are all close shots. We cannot see the surrounding and immediate area so you cannot say that they weren't doing that. In fact, the third picture in your original post looks like they may be ordering someone away from the area.

GSS, it should be obvious why it isn't an option. It is a highly volatile, life or death situation. You've got a nutcase on the ground rolling over some dodgy home made explosives. Knocking someone out takes more time and is far more likely to fail than shooting them. So you shoot them. It's just basic common sense.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 12:10pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 11:52am: The Palestinians don't have military grade explosives, they make their own which are not very stable at all. Yes, I thought so. This would answer GSS' question about how one can detonate an explosive charge by rolling around.

But it also confirms that the Israeli's would have shot him dead straight away, they know that the bombs are unstable in that situation, none of them would have been anywhere near him when they shot him either.

Again, no one has addressed this point. The Israeli's said that he was wearing a big coat and refused to take it off, that's why they killed him.

Was he wearing a big coat when he was shot?

If not then that means the Israeli's lied

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 12:19pm:

GSS, it should be obvious why it isn't an option. It is a highly volatile, life or death situation. You've got a nutcase on the ground rolling over some dodgy home made explosives. Knocking someone out takes more time and is far more likely to fail than shooting them. So you shoot them. It's just basic common sense.

after handcuffing them and getting close enough to knock them out that is......it's obvious that he was somewhat sub-dued, given that they managed to get handcuffs on him.

does that make sense to you? he was calm enough to put handcuffs on him, but the situation suddenly became volatile after that.

sorry, but that story doesn't add up.

if u take the Israeli story, that the guy had a bomb and they had to shot him because it was a life or death situation - then u have to wonder why they handcuffed him in the first place??

if he really had a bomb, then they would have shot him straight away.

why would they go through all the trouble to handcuff him first?

Good link - Rules of Engagement.

Thanks.

:)

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 12:21pm:

Again, no one has addressed this point. The Israeli's said that he was wearing a big coat and refused to take it off, that's why they killed him. Was he wearing a big coat when he was shot? If not then that means the Israeli's lied

There was no coat shown on the ground either when he was alive, then why did you mention that the robot could possibly be removing the coat?

Was there even a coat? Who said that there was a coat. I've found no references to the Iraelis saying anything about asking him to remove his coat. Can you produce a link of this fact.

You seem obsess with this coat. What about the question of whether he did have a belt on him or not? You don't seem to concern about this discrepency.

But it also confirms that the Israeli's would have shot him dead straight away

No it doesn't.

none of them would have been anywhere near him when they shot him either

Yes they would. They would not have let him go and said please don't detonate until we walk away and shoot you from a distance. They would have held onto him while they shot him, just as the photos indicate.

it's obvious that he was somewhat sub-dued

Yes GSS he was somewhat subdued, and if they had tried to knock him out instead of killing him, they may have ended up somewhat dead.

does that make sense to you? he was calm enough to put handcuffs on him, but the situation suddenly became volatile after that

Sure it makes sense - all hell broke loose when they realised he was trying to detonate a bomb.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:16pm:

Sure it makes sense - all hell broke loose when they realised he was trying to detonate a bomb.

okay, so the suicide bomber had a bomb strapped to his chest and decided not to detonate it until after he was handcuffed.

umm.....why didn't he detonate it when he wasn't handcuffed?
i.e. he still had the use of his hands to detonate the bomb, rather than rolling around on the floor when handcuffed.
wouldn't that have made more sense?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 12:53pm:

There was no coat shown on the ground either when he was alive, then why did you mention that the robot could possibly be removing the coat? Was there even a coat? Who said that there was a coat. I've found no references to the Iraelis saying anything about asking him to remove his coat. Can you produce a link of this fact. You seem obsess with this coat. What about the question of whether he did have a belt on him or not? You don't seem to concern about this discrepency.

Look at the report I've posted from BBC which I've found online below:

There's no proof that he'd had a bomb on him, in fact the Israeli reactions tend to indicate he didn't because they all wouldn't have been standing around him like that.

They would have shot him dead long before because they don't mess around with bombs.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1867726.stm Controversy over 'execution' pictures Eleven photographs taken by an amateur photographer from his window in east Jerusalem have caused outrage in the Arabic media, which allege they show the summary execution of a Palestinian militant. Israeli police said the man was a would-be suicide bomber who they were forced to kill to prevent him from detonating a "large explosive device" strapped to his waist. The AFP news agency - which published the graphic, but inconclusive images below - said it had received the testimonies of more than 10 eyewitnesses, who said the man was shot half-an-hour after his arrest when he was completely subdued. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1865000/images/_1867726_first300.jpg Israeli police are first pictured arresting 23-year-old suspected suicide bomber Mahmud Salah (centre) and another man http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1865000/images/_1867726_second300again.jpg Salah - who was on a bombing mission for the militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - is brought to the ground by a police http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1865000/images/_1867726_thirdd300.jpg The other detainee is led away but Salah is kept on the tarmac http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1865000/images/_1867726_fourth300.jpg This photo appears to belie an official statement saying police only opened fire when Salah refused to remove his overcoat http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1865000/images/_1867726_sixth300.jpg A robot device then removed what was described as Salah's explosives belt

Sorry those pics don't seem to come up. but check the link

umm.....why didn't he detonate it when he wasn't handcuffed?

Perhaps there weren't enough people around.

because they all wouldn't have been standing around him like that

Haven't we gone over this numerous times already Malik? Are you trying sprint's tactic now of repeating the same claim over and over and ignoring the response?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

umm.....why didn't he detonate it when he wasn't handcuffed? Perhaps there weren't enough people around.

That's rediculous, he was already captured FD and was about to be handcuffed.. the first thing they would have done is frisked him and found the bomb on him.. not waited until they stripped him down to find it.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

because they all wouldn't have been standing around him like that Haven't we gone over this numerous times already Malik? Are you trying sprint's tactic now of repeating the same claim over and over and ignoring the response?

Are you going to claim that you know more about Israeli military strategy and tactics than I do? Because I can assure you that you don't.

NO MILITARY OR POLICE FORCE IN THE WORLD WOULD BE STANDING THAT CLOSE TO A LIVE BOMB WHEN IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE COULD DETONATE IT UNLESS THEY ARE AN EOD SQUAD, WHICH THESE POLICE WERE NOT. PLUS THEY'D HAVE CLEARED THE AREA OF THE OTHER POLICE AND ANYONE ELSE NOT NEEDED THERE.

They would have shot him dead, if you understand anything about Israeli soldiers it's that they wont put their lives in danger in that situation, they'll shoot the bomber straight away and THEN send the robot in to take the bomb off of him.

They didn't do that, instead they wasted time holding him down and stripped him naked before even thinking about it. They waited a whole half an hour for it.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 1:53pm: umm.....why didn't he detonate it when he wasn't handcuffed? Perhaps there weren't enough people around. That's rediculous, he was already captured FD and was about to be handcuffed.. the first thing they would have done is frisked him and found the bomb on him.. not waited until they stripped him down to find it.

actually malik, usually when the israeli's arrest suspected terrorists, they order them to lift their shirts from far away to show that they aren't wearing any bombs.

the frisk when they are close are for small weapons, or in some cases, just to humiliate the arrested individual by stripping them of their clothes - kind of abu ghraib style.

GSS wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 1:59pm: freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 1:53pm: umm.....why didn't he detonate it when he wasn't handcuffed? Perhaps there weren't enough people around. That's rediculous, he was already captured FD and was about to be handcuffed.. the first thing they would have done is frisked him and found the bomb on him.. not waited until they stripped him down to find it. actually malik, usually when the israeli's arrest suspected terrorists, they order them to lift their shirts from far away to show that they aren't wearing any bombs. the frisk when they are close are for small weapons, or in some cases, just to humiliate the arrested individual.

Yes that's correct, they even sometimes make palestinians even take their shirts off when they arrest them

the first thing they would have done is frisked him and found the bomb on him.. not waited until they stripped him down to find it.

Which is what they were doing in the photo

not waited until they stripped him down to find it.

Maybe they were trying to capture him alive by disarming the device, as is standard procedure, but then changed their minds when he started thrashing about.

Are you going to claim that you know more about Israeli military strategy and tactics than I do?

I'm just pointing out errors in your logic. And besides, you claim Israelis shoot at children in schools for sport, which is obviously not true, so you must be getting your info from very unreliable sources.

NO MILITARY OR POLICE FORCE IN THE WORLD WOULD BE STANDING THAT CLOSE TO A LIVE BOMB WHEN IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE COULD DETONATE IT.

And your dodgy sequence of photos that are out of order and missing important bits does not clarify whether this happened. It looks more like a montage of images try tell a story that is nothing like what really happened. You claim it occured over a long period of time. It could represent only ten seconds of action.

It's kind of hypocritical to whine about the death of a member of a terrorist organisation while ignoring the context of those same people blowing up innocent Israelis on busses. This death, even if unjustified, is an inevitable consequence of those dirty tactics. Do you really expect people to care that a member of the martyr's brigade gets killed?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

the first thing they would have done is frisked him and found the bomb on him.. not waited until they stripped him down to find it. Which is what they were doing in the photo

Before the Israeli's would have frisked him they'd have asked him to lift his shirt. This is why they said they shot him when he refused to lift his overcoat up to prove he didn't have a bomb.



freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

not waited until they stripped him down to find it. Maybe they were trying to capture him alive by disarming the device, as is standard procedure, but then changed their minds when he started thrashing about.

They'd have made him remove the bomb himself, if he refused or tried to blow himself up they'd have shot him.



freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

Are you going to claim that you know more about Israeli military strategy and tactics than I do? I'm just pointing out errors in your logic. And besides, you claim Israelis shoot at children in schools for sport, which is obviously not true, so you must be getting your info from very unreliable sources.

The Israeli's kill Palestinians unessecarily with no cause and not in self defence. If we do that to an animal it's considered hunting for sport, but when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian you don't even consider it worth mentioning.



freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

NO MILITARY OR POLICE FORCE IN THE WORLD WOULD BE STANDING THAT CLOSE TO A LIVE BOMB WHEN IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE COULD DETONATE IT. And your dodgy sequence of photos that are out of order and missing important bits does not clarify whether this happened. It looks more like a montage of images try tell a story that is nothing like what really happened. You claim it occured over a long period of time. It could represent only ten seconds of action.

It's obvious the Israeli's didn't feel threatened or they wouldn't have been standing around like that. It's standard operating procedure to move unessecary people out of the range of the bomb

Malik, they are all valid questions and points. But they are not questiosn that can be resolved with your deceptive photo sequence. The case is obviously not as clear cut as you imagine and you cannot expect us to take the photo sequence seriously when certain parts were deliberately omitted. It's like when you read about the school kid getting shot and the accusations that the Israelis did it, then came up with an absurd fantasy of Israelis shooting at kids in schools for sport.

You accused many members here of considering Muslims to be subhuman etc etc. When you deliberately misrepresent us at the drop of a hat, why should we take your interpretation of events on the other side of the world seriously?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

It's kind of hypocritical to whine about the death of a member of a terrorist organisation while ignoring the context of those same people blowing up innocent Israelis on busses. This death, even if unjustified, is an inevitable consequence of those dirty tactics. Do you really expect people to care that a member of the martyr's brigade gets killed?

Agreed. As I've said, he is not an innocent victim.

And, the whole sequence of photos are inconclusive at best.

Malik wrote;
"No, he wasn't confirmed to be a suicide bomber, he was confirmed to be a part of the Al-Aqsa's Martyrs brigade, they don't only do suicide bombing they also take part in other types of conflicts"

So what other activities do the martyr's brigade involve themselves in?
Trivia nights, fun runs,  bake sales?
Get real Malik, if this guy was going to martyr himself anyway, then they are not really responsible for his loss of life, just the prevention of him taking other peoples' lives also, who incidentally, were probably quite grateful for that, not being paid up martyrs, they may have been ineligible for the virgin payout.

The fact is we none of us know the whole circumstances around this death, but the palestinian modus operandi does make the Israelis account seem more plausible than the palestinian version.

As far as the killing kids for sport assertion, you are still repeating it, based solely on your prejudicial view of israel, rather than any actual evidence.
I know 'you' believe it, but for one who is so concerned about others making unfounded accusations, I would have expected you to try and follow your own criteria, and try to be more objective.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:

Are you going to claim that you know more about Israeli military strategy and tactics than I do? Because I can assure you that you don't.

Were you in the Israeli military, or did you read about it on the internet?

Fact is, this guy is a member of a terrorist organisation. He clearly has intentions to kill civilians. Good thing they shot him IMO.

Malik, I anticipate you are going to go on about Israeli shootings of civilians next. That has nothing to do with the fact that this guy is better off dead.

And that picture of the kid tied to the vehicle. Good job Israeli's. That will teach the little bastards to throw rocks. I dare say in the 1980's in Australia, if you did that to a police car they would do far worse than tying you to the car if you were a kid.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:25pm:

Agreed. As I've said, he is not an innocent victim. And, the whole sequence of photos are inconclusive at best.

So what crime are you accusing him of being guilty of committing if you're saying he's not innocent?

Then consider whether it justifies executing him without a trial?

Yes, I see the great western civilized values right here now that you've said that.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 2:25pm: Agreed. As I've said, he is not an innocent victim. And, the whole sequence of photos are inconclusive at best. So what crime are you accusing him of being guilty of committing if you're saying he's not innocent? Then consider whether it justifies executing him without a trial? Yes, I see the great western civilized values right here now that you've said that.

No crime other than that he is associated with and complicit with an organisation noted for their lethal activities.

I'm saying, if I am 23 years old (of which I'm older) and I was in a bikie gang who's involved in the drug trade you can hardly call me an innocent person who happened by when the place got raided.

This is totally different to a girl walking to school getting shot and killed - she was an innocent; he wasn't.

Plus, he had a bomb strapped to himself and was trying to ignite it. It was self defence.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:47am:

No, he wasn't confirmed to be a suicide bomber, he was confirmed to be a part of the Al-Aqsa's Martyrs brigade, they don't only do suicide bombing they also take part in other types of conflicts.

Seriously Malik....

And you trying to explain away the activities of the martyrs brigade does not take away the fact that they are still a terrorist organisation that conducts suicide bombings. It doesn't matter whether I was the drug cook, the standover man, the guy who does the accounts or the wide eye kid doing all the errands in the hope of getting into the forementioned bikie gang - an criminal gang is still a criminal gang.

The american mafia has for many years donated to charity. That does not take away the fact that they a criminal element who extorts, blackmail and murder people.

If you are worried about the innocent victims then why aren't you worried about the potential victims the brigade will kill? Instead of a member of a terrorist group? Is it because the victims are not Muslims and he is?

Where is your objectivity?

easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

Were you in the Israeli military, or did you read about it on the internet?

As a part of my university course I've had to look at the politics, wars and tactics of the nations in the Middle East.



easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

Fact is, this guy is a member of a terrorist organisation. He clearly has intentions to kill civilians. Good thing they shot him IMO.

But where was his fair trial?


easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

And that picture of the kid tied to the vehicle. Good job Israeli's. That will teach the little bastards to throw rocks. I dare say in the 1980's in Australia, if you did that to a police car they would do far worse than tying you to the car if you were a kid.

The israeli's are occupying those kid's land, what do you expect from them?

They broke international law by taking human shields, it's funny.. You being an athiest act all high and mighty about what you consider barbaric behaviour from people with a religion, but at the same time you applaud the breaking of international law by Israeli soldiers, using these kids as human shields.

They also shoot little palestinian kids who throw stones, you going to applaud that too?

How often do the Palestinians use human shields?

Maybe that kid just pood himself and they didn't want him in the car.

I'm not an atheist.

easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

Fact is, this guy is a member of a terrorist organisation. He clearly has intentions to kill civilians. Good thing they shot him IMO.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:20pm:

No crime other than that he is associated with and complicit with an organisation noted for their lethal activities. This is totally different to a girl walking to school getting shot and killed - she was an innocent; he wasn't.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:06pm:

It's kind of hypocritical to whine about the death of a member of a terrorist organisation while ignoring the context of those same people blowing up innocent Israelis on busses. This death, even if unjustified, is an inevitable consequence of those dirty tactics. Do you really expect people to care that a member of the martyr's brigade gets killed?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

And you trying to explain away the activities of the martyrs brigade does not take away the fact that they are still a terrorist organisation that conducts suicide bombings. If you are worried about the innocent victims then why aren't you worried about the potential victims the brigade will kill? Instead of a member of a terrorist group? Is it because the victims are not Muslims and he is?

Okay then, according to your logic.. Him being apart of the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade makes him a legitimate target. He deserved to die. I'll accept that.

But in that case, we'll also apply the same rule to the Israeli's. All Israeli adults enter into the Israeli army which targets civilians, going by the fact that out of the 4862 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since 09/2000 to 04/2008, more than 3485 or 71.67% of those were civilians, not found to be engaging in hostilities against the Israeli's, a similar percentage has been found of the 1057 Israeli's killed by Palestinian's 723 or 68.4% of those killed were civilians.  

So if we actually apply your logic to that then it creates an offset that makes every single Israeli adult a legitimate target to be killed because they're in the army (whether it's the reserves or full time). If that is the case then we'll take a look again at the statistics of Israeli's killed and upon seeing that only 123 of the total were minors it means that the innocent Israeli's that were killed only amount to a total of 11.63% of those killed by the Palestinians in comparison to the 71.67% of Palestinians (The Palestinian civilians killed still amount to 71.67% because Palestinians aren't obligated to join a resistance group like Israeli's are obligated to join the army).

So, as we can see, according to your own logic the Palestinians kill less Israeli civilians than Israeli's kill Palestinian civilians. That simply shows that the real terrorists are the Israeli's and not the Palestinians because not only are the Israeli's occupying the Palestinian's land boundaries (as set by UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the Israeli army to go back to 1967 borders, which they still have not done) and not vice versa, but the Israeli's kill far more innocent civilians than the Palestinians do.  

So now you have no other option but to agree that if him being a part of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade made him a legitimate target for killing then every single Israeli adult is also a legitimate target.

If you refuse to admit that all Israeli adults are legitimate targets then you are hypocrites who believe that Israeli's have more rights to defend themselves than Palestinians do (even though the Israeli's are occupying the Palestinian territories set out by the UN Security Council in Resolution 242).

If you are not hypocrites then you must now retract saying that he deserved to die and admit that simply being part of a resistance organization doesn't make you a legitimate target to be killed but instead there must be more stringent guidelines including at least giving a fair trial and bringing sufficient evidence before convicting someone and then executing them rather than just extrajudicially killing them on the spot.

So which one is it?

Statistics were taken from an Israeli human rights group's casualty lists at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

I will say that armed IDF members should expect to be engaged in hostile Palestinian territory and I have an understanding of the reasons of this happening.

I will not say that it is ok for an Israeli within Israel to be shot at.

easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:08pm:

I will say that armed IDF members should expect to be engaged in hostile Palestinian territory and I have an understanding of the reasons of this happening. I will not say that it is ok for an Israeli within Israel to be shot at.

You say that knowing that every Israeli adult is in the Israeli Army. So if you say that then you now must admit that it's only those engaged in hostile activities which in the Israeli's case is any Israeli being in the Palestinian borders as defined by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and in the Palestinian legitimate target do you consider a legitimate target to be any Palestinian who is launching rockets into or attacking anything or anyone within the Israeli borders defined by UN Security Council Resolution 242?

Not every Israeli is in the IDF. I personally met an Israeli Christian girl who was not required to do national service because she was a student.

Your post is a bit erratic.

As far as I am aware, any legitimate target is that which threatens life or has the potential to do so.

easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

Not every Israeli is in the IDF. I personally met an Israeli Christian girl who was not required to do national service because she was a student. Your post is a bit erratic. As far as I am aware, any legitimate target is that which threatens life or has the potential to do so.

All Israeli Jewish and Druze men and all Jewish women are required to do national service when they turn 18. Men serve 3 years and women serve 2 years. Exceptions are made on religious, physical and psychological grounds. Your friend is Christian. Therefore, she is exempted from mandatory national service.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

Okay then, according to your logic.. Him being apart of the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade makes him a legitimate target. He deserved to die. I'll accept that.

That is not what I said. It is not my opinion that he deserves to die. Nobody deserves to die.

However, everyone makes choices in their lives that they must be responsible and be accountable for. In your original post you neglected to mention that he was a member of the brigade. I pointed that fact out and said that he's not all that innocent as you have implied. He is an adult who knows what he's doing and well aware of the activities that the organisation that he is a member of. That was his choice. People lament when a soldier is killed but in the end it was the career choice the soldier made and therefore accepts the fact that his profession might get him killed. You asked me what his crime was because my description of him as not being an innocent victim. I don't know, as far as the Israelis are concern, I guess he is an enemy combatant. Perhaps he was wanted for serious crime. Perhaps there's a file on him that says "proceed with caution, prone to spew verbal personal abuse, extremely dangerous" and they were trigger happy. Nevertheless, he is a member of a dangerous and very lethal organisation. Association to such an organisation of that notoriety is probably enough to get you killed in Israel. This is different to the little girl who was shot while on her way to school. If he was a shop keeper on his way to his shop then an innocent was also killed.

As for all Israelis being legitimate targets simply because they did national service is not a justification. There is no choice on their part. Israeli law states that they MUST serve of face imprisonment. They serve because they have to serve. After national service they are civillians because they too just want to live their life in peace and grow old with their families (the same as Palestinians).

Palestinians attacking soldiers sure. It's war. That's understandable. Regretful but such is life and war. Attacking civilians is a different thing. To say that he or she once serve therefore a legitimate target is an evil rational to justify murder. You show indignance for a girl or an shopkeeper getting killed - I'll stand with you. You show indignace for a Hamas soldier getting killed - its a waste of a life and I'd feel for his family but in the end that's the choice he made.

Say for example, in the news at the moment there is an 18 year old kid who was hit by a truck because he was playing chicken. He's a total idiot. He's probably given the driver nightmares for god knows how long, and he may be permanently injured or he may die. If he dies, it's sad but it is the fault of no one save his own because its the decision he chose.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

If you are worried about the innocent victims then why aren't you worried about the potential victims the brigade will kill? Instead of a member of a terrorist group? Is it because the victims are not Muslims and he is?

I ask again because by your post (and I'll twist your logic back to you) if you care about the the manner in which Saleh was senselessly killed why aren't you showing the same concern for the potential victims the brigade will kill. You post with such fervour in defence of the girl and Saleh but only make a passing comments like "I don't approve of suicide bombing because its against Islam" despite the fact that this guy's associations being suicide bombers.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

Statistics were taken from an Israeli human rights group's casualty lists at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Good link, but you don't need to convince anyone about the inbalance of deaths on both sides. That's widely known and accepted. Yes, the Israeli killed a lot more Palestinians.... etc etc.

But this is not about keeping score (well, maybe it is for the Israelis and the Palestinians) this is about the killing of non-combatants on BOTH sides. You are never going to convince me or change my mind about the soldiers fighting for Palestine as long as they are indiscriminately killing civilians. Likewise, I'll condemn the IDF for their "sports". Its the same in Iraq.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

I ask again because by your post (and I'll twist your logic back to you) if you care about the the manner in which Saleh was senselessly killed why aren't you showing the same concern for the potential victims the brigade will kill. You post with such fervour in defence of the girl and Saleh but only make a passing comments like "I don't approve of suicide bombing because its against Islam" despite the fact that this guy's associations being suicide bombers.

The Martyrs Brigade are made up of several groups actually, not all use suicide bombing as a tactic and there is no indication that Saleh would have either.

What if his intentions were to kill Israeli soldiers in the Palestinian territories? What then? Would you expect me to feel sorry for them? You can be damned sure that I'd never feel sorry for them because THEY are the ones who crossed into Palestinian land illegally and with weapons, they made the conscious decision to do so and occupy anothers land while oppressing them. They are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them. I wouldn't care if I was given the choice between even a day in the army where I'd have to oppress another person or life in prison I'd rather go to prison, because oppressing or transgressing against another person if for even a second is completely wrong and can't be justified. They HAVE a choice, they can do the right thing and make a stand for justice as more and more Israeli's are doing every year by actually preferring to go to prison than serve in the Army. If someone holds their own freedom as more important than another human beings then it shows how bad they really are.

But you'll never know his true intentions because he was murdered uneccesarily when they could have arrested him and tried him in front of a court. That'll never happen which is a true shame because I AM against suicide bombings and targetting civilians.

If his intentions were to do a suicide bombing and kill innocent civilians then so be it, he'd face his Creator in the next life and I condemn that behaviour and will continue to do so until I die.

The fact is that I don't need to justify to you why I think suicide bombings are forbidden and wrong. You know for sure how wrong it is, however if I come across a Muslim that thinks such behaviour is appropriate then you will see that not only do I speak with such passion about it being wrong, but if I feel that it's possible that they'd consider doing such a thing and wont change I'd go straight to the authorities so they can be dealt with. I don't like ANYONE defaming my religion by claiming it is something righteous and holy to take an innocent person's life.

easel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

As far as I am aware, any legitimate target is that which threatens life or has the potential to do so.

Any Israeli that is actually in the Palestinian Territories is committing an aggression because they have no legal or legitimate right to be there, even the UN Security Council made resolution 242 which called for ALL Israeli's to withdraw back into the 1967 Borders.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg

This map shows where Israeli's are occupying settlements in the Palestinian territories as those set out in 1967 borders in this case being the West Bank, The Israeli settlements are built up by the military and protected by them and as they expand they steal the Palestinian's resources and steal their land by forcing them out of it with intimidation from beatings or murdering the Palestinians in addition to ripping up all of their crops. Then the Israeli's confine the Palestinians to small ghetto'd areas by blocking off roads that lead out and making them Israeli only zones by joining their settlements. All of this in the Palestinians own land..

Here are some examples:
Israeli settlers terrorizing Palestinians
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2814696748269249314&q=israeli+settlers&ei=776ISLq4KIyarAPgzNm8CA
Israeli settlers beating Palestinian farmers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5317943338777848208&q=armed+israeli+settlers&ei=PL2ISOhVi4auA9aF4LgI  
Israeli settlers stealing Palestinian lands.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baa_1188939296&p=1
Israeli settlers stealing Palestinian lands and claiming that God gave them that land and it's their right, that there is no Palestinian land because it's all Israel.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=956_1188340920&p=1
Video News report:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1897796448089922203&q=israeli+settlers&ei=776ISLq4KIyarAPgzNm8CA
Settlers beat Palestinians
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6638569031144799277&q=israeli+settlers&ei=776ISLq4KIyarAPgzNm8CA
Israeli Settlers terrorizing Palestinian school girls every day
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8963873896399386286&ei=776ISLq4KIyarAPgzNm8CA&hl=en
The Israeli settlers invade, occupy, shoot at, stone and terrorize the Palestinians in the Palestinians own land defined by the 1967 borders. The Israeli army does nothing to stop them but if a Palestinian ever hits back they'll arrest them, beat them or kill them.

The aggression and threatening of Palestinian life is right there as I've shown you. If the Palestinians did this in Israeli territory or Indonesians did this in Australia they'd rightfully be considered legitimate targets. But the Israeli's aren't considered the same.. Why not?

I still think it's best not to fight Israeli settlers unless they are armed and if they are then they are fair game, regardless of whether they are in a uniform or not, they are not only illegally occupying Palestinian land but they are doing so at the barrel of a gun.

I can't see it, could you find a bigger map?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 7:13am:

I can't see it, could you find a bigger map?

I know it's quite large, but I couldn't find a smaller version of what I wanted to show.

"the UN in fact is only a tool to maintain the imperialism of the victors of WW2."

It seems funny how in one thread you can dismiss the UN so totally, then justify violence in the area, because it has a resolution regarding the palestinian region that you agree with.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 10:30am:

"the UN in fact is only a tool to maintain the imperialism of the victors of WW2." It seems funny how in one thread you can dismiss the UN so totally, then justify violence in the area, because it has a resolution regarding the palestinian region that you agree with.

The UN is a tool to maintain it, why do you think nothing has been done about the israeli occupation of palestine but it has been done about iraq? it goes with the interests of the US and other permanent members and a palestinian state isnt in their interests or they'd have forced israel

The Martyrs Brigade are made up of several groups actually, not all use suicide bombing as a tactic and there is no indication that Saleh would have either.

Except of course for the bomb he was wearing...

They HAVE a choice, they can do the right thing and make a stand for justice as more and more Israeli's are doing every year by actually preferring to go to prison than serve in the Army.

Perhaps that would happen a lot more if the palestinians stopped sending over suicide bombers.

If his intentions were to do a suicide bombing and kill innocent civilians then so be it, he'd face his Creator in the next life

We'd prefer if he didn't kill a heap of innocent civilians along the way, thank you very much.

Malik, MS Paint or something equivalent will shrink images for you.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:06am:

The Martyrs Brigade are made up of several groups actually, not all use suicide bombing as a tactic and there is no indication that Saleh would have either.

Again, it doesn't matter whether he is an accountant in the accounting dept - it is still a terrorist group.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:06am:

What if his intentions were to kill Israeli soldiers in the Palestinian territories? What then? Would you expect me to feel sorry for them? You can be damned sure that I'd never feel sorry for them because THEY are the ones who crossed into Palestinian land illegally and with weapons, they made the conscious decision to do so and occupy anothers land while oppressing them.

Fair enough. I accept that.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:06am:

But you'll never know his true intentions because he was murdered uneccesarily when they could have arrested him and tried him in front of a court. That'll never happen which is a true shame because I AM against suicide bombings and targetting civilians.

Nevertheless, the fact that the brigade do indiscriminately kill innocents as well as soldiers highlights the immorality of the group. The fact that he is willing to be part of this group knowing the acts they commit shows the level of person he is with regards to the disregards of innocent lives.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:06am:

If his intentions were to do a suicide bombing and kill innocent civilians then so be it, he'd face his Creator in the next life and I condemn that behaviour and will continue to do so until I die.

Fair enough. I accept and applaud that.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:06am:

The fact is that I don't need to justify to you why I think suicide bombings are forbidden and wrong. You know for sure how wrong it is, however if I come across a Muslim that thinks such behaviour is appropriate then you will see that not only do I speak with such passion about it being wrong, but if I feel that it's possible that they'd consider doing such a thing and wont change I'd go straight to the authorities so they can be dealt with. I don't like ANYONE defaming my religion by claiming it is something righteous and holy to take an innocent person's life.

No, you don't have to justify to us, and neither do we have to justify to you either as you have asked easel FD and I to do.

And no one is defaming (at least not I) your religion. In this case I question the the morality of this particular group.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Again, it doesn't matter whether he is an accountant in the accounting dept - it is still a terrorist group.

So then according to your logic, no Israeli adult that is in the occupied territories set by 1967 borders is innocent, thus are legitimate targets due to their being in either the fulltime or reserve army which are both obligatory for them and occupying Palestinian lands.

I would say personally that ANY Israeli who is armed and in the Palestinian territories, regardless whether they are in uniform or not is committing an aggression or is a threat and thus is a legitimate target.

Like the following:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Israel_8_Young_israelic_settler_with_rifle.jpg/397px-Israel_8_Young_israelic_settler_with_rifle.jpg
http://www.imemc.org/attachments/apr2008/israeli_settlers_in_hebron_city.gif
http://www.imemc.org/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/nov2007/400_0___10000000_0_0_0_0_0_hebronsettlers_onstreet.jpg

All of them are armed and in Palestinian territories illegally according to the 1967 borders. Thus are completely legitimate targets.


Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Nevertheless, the fact that the brigade do indiscriminately kill innocents as well as soldiers highlights the immorality of the group. The fact that he is willing to be part of this group knowing the acts they commit shows the level of person he is with regards to the disregards of innocent lives.

The Israeli percentages of killing innocent civilians is more than 70% of Palestinian casualties, which is greater than the Palestinian resistance groups civilian deaths.

If that is the case then it shows that anyone in the Israeli army is part of an immoral organization that commits murder against innocent civilians, making them legitimate targets.



Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

No, you don't have to justify to us, and neither do we have to justify to you either as you have asked easel FD and I to do. And no one is defaming (at least not I) your religion. In this case I question the the morality of this particular group.

But do you consider the Israeli army as being the same level with their higher percentage of Palestinian innocent civilians killed?

The Israeli percentages of killing innocent civilians is more than 70% of Palestinian casualties, which is greater than the Palestinian resistance groups civilian deaths.

Would you mind backing that up?

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:52pm:

The Israeli percentages of killing innocent civilians is more than 70% of Palestinian casualties, which is greater than the Palestinian resistance groups civilian deaths. Would you mind backing that up?

Statistics were found at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Of the 4862 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since 09/2000 to 04/2008, more than 3485 or 71.67% of those were not found to be engaging in hostilities against the Israeli's.


Calculation was working out the percentage (3485/4862)X100=71.67
Therefore 71.67% of Palestinian deaths were not engaged in hostilities against the Israeli's.

I did not take into account the amout of Palestinians that were targets of Israeli assasinations (even though they were not provided a trial and were killed extrajudicially), if I had dones so it would mean that the number of Palestinians dead would be 76.45% who were not engaged in hostilities against the Israeli's but to be conservative we wont add them.

However if we use that logic to judge Israeli's we'll find that all Israeli adults go to the army and after they finish their fulltime service they have to serve part time so all Israeli adults can be considered legitimate targets for assasination as the Israeli's targetted assassinations are simply just killing any member of a Palestinian resistance group, even if they weren't engaging in hostilities at the time they were executed, If I was to calculate the Israeli deaths the same way it would mean that only 123 of the 1057 Israeli's that died were minors and that means that according to the percentage calculation (123/1057)X100= 11.63, so only 11.63% of those killed were not legitimate according to the logic that allows targetted assasinations of Palestinians.

There's a big difference between them..

Of the 4862 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since 09/2000 to 04/2008, more than 3485 or 71.67% of those were not found to be engaging in hostilities against the Israeli's.

I think if you are going to make a comparison, you should use the same standard, not try to justify a different standard on the grounds that you think it's OK to kill Israeli civilians.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 4:57pm:

Of the 4862 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since 09/2000 to 04/2008, more than 3485 or 71.67% of those were not found to be engaging in hostilities against the Israeli's. I think if you are going to make a comparison, you should use the same standard, not try to justify a different standard on the grounds that you think it's OK to kill Israeli civilians.

Excuse me FD, but the amount of people I gave you were civilians. I didn't add those engaged in hostilities with Israeli forces nor those who were the victims of targeted assasinations.

That, by definition means they were innocent and that equalled up to 71.67%

You need to numbers to make a comparison. Obviously I was referring to the number you were comparing this to.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:

You need to numbers to make a comparison. Obviously I was referring to the number you were comparing this to.

There's no difference really, I gave you the correct comparison.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:

The Israeli percentages of killing innocent civilians is more than 70% of Palestinian casualties, which is greater than the Palestinian resistance groups civilian deaths.

I've said already that this is not the Olympic games of who has the biggest score or the highest medal tally count. And we already know and have acknowledge that there is an imbalance in the dead toll.



Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:

If that is the case then it shows that anyone in the Israeli army is part of an immoral organization that commits murder against innocent civilians, making them legitimate targets.

In a state of war (which I'm sure that both sides would believe that they are engaged in) I would accept the the Palestinians would view the IDF as legitimate targets; as would the IDF view members of terrorists organisations. However, civilians are NOT and should NEVER be targets on both sides.

Are you saying that the brigade (and others) have the legitimate right to kill civilians just because the IDF did? Just because the IDF commit atrocities doesn't give them the right to kill civilians in revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right etc and blah blah blah.

If you are telling me that the death of civilians is justified because "they've killed more of us then we have of them" then I believe that you are as irrational as Sprint.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

I've said already that this is not the Olympic games of who has the biggest score or the highest medal tally count. And we already know and have acknowledge that there is an imbalance in the dead toll.

I'm just making it very clear regarding the percentages of civilians killed on both sides because most people here seem to have the impression that the Palestinians kill a higher percentage of civilians than Israeli's do. I'm sure you're aware that it's simply not the case but others aren't.


Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

In a state of war (which I'm sure that both sides would believe that they are engaged in) I would accept the the Palestinians would view the IDF as legitimate targets; as would the IDF view members of terrorists organisations. However, civilians are NOT and should NEVER be targets on both sides.

But almost all Israeli's are in the Israeli Army until the age of 45 years old, with 2-3 years of that being fulltime and the rest being part time. Even reservist soldiers to go to Gaza and the West Bank and invade Palestinian territory, that means that according to that logic. All Israeli's between the ages of 18-45 are legitimate targets because they're part of the Israeli Army.


Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

Are you saying that the brigade (and others) have the legitimate right to kill civilians just because the IDF did? Just because the IDF commit atrocities doesn't give them the right to kill civilians in revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right etc and blah blah blah. If you are telling me that the death of civilians is justified because "they've killed more of us then we have of them" then I believe that you are as irrational as Sprint.

Nope, I wasn't saying that at all.

The question however is an Israeli who is armed and in Palestinian territories considered a civilian? I'd say no they aren't and they are making the direct decision to invade land that isn't theirs and they are armed. That is clearly a combattant and we'd treat any Indonesian who did so as an aggressor and a legitimate target.

Indonesian?

:-?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:12pm:

Indonesian? :-?

Yes, if the Indonesian army invaded Australian land then we'd treat them as an aggressor and a legitimate target.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were alluding that Indonesians were invading Palestine.

Ok, going slightly of topic but related to another - as I understand it, Muslims invaded nations centuries ago under the leadership of Muhammad. Is he therefore not the aggressor and occupier? Is there not a legitimate right to fight back? Because I seem to recall you painting a picture of him being a benevolent leader who invaded for the good of the (invaded) nation.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:21pm:

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were alluding that Indonesians were invading Palestine. Ok, going slightly of topic but related to another - as I understand it, Muslims invaded nations centuries ago under the leadership of Muhammad. Is he therefore not the aggressor and occupier? Is there not a legitimate right to fight back? Because I seem to recall you painting a picture of him being a benevolent leader who invaded for the good of the (invaded) nation.

Do you know how the Muslims took Jerusalem?  

I would love a Muslim perspective.

:)

There's no difference really, I gave you the correct comparison.

No you didn't. For the Israeli army figure, you excluded palestinians killed who were not engaging in hostilities as 'unfair targets'. Then you used some convoluted logic to include all Isralis citizens as 'fair targets' even if they weren't engaged in hostilities.

Also, isn't this a reflection of the fact that the palesitnians use 'dirty tactics'? They cannot mount a proper war against the Israelis, so instead the mix in with the civilians. Even if your stats were not completely dodgy, it wouldn't reflect on Israel, rather it would reflect on the nature of the conflict.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:26pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 6:21pm: Oh, for a minute there I thought you were alluding that Indonesians were invading Palestine. Ok, going slightly of topic but related to another - as I understand it, Muslims invaded nations centuries ago under the leadership of Muhammad. Is he therefore not the aggressor and occupier? Is there not a legitimate right to fight back? Because I seem to recall you painting a picture of him being a benevolent leader who invaded for the good of the (invaded) nation. Do you know how the Muslims took Jerusalem?

Was it the same way Eno took Tiger Mountain?

Come on tell us how he did it, I love a good story.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:34pm:

There's no difference really, I gave you the correct comparison. No you didn't. For the Israeli army figure, you excluded palestinians killed who were not engaging in hostilities as 'unfair targets'. Then you used some convoluted logic to include all Isralis citizens as 'fair targets' even if they weren't engaged in hostilities. Also, isn't this a reflection of the fact that the palesitnians use 'dirty tactics'? They cannot mount a proper war against the Israelis, so instead the mix in with the civilians. Even if your stats were not completely dodgy, it wouldn't reflect on Israel, rather it would reflect on the nature of the conflict.

Actually I haven't said that I agree with that at all, I don't think all Israeli citizens are fair targets, however I do think that if we are going to say, like some have that Mahmoud Saleh deserved to die because he was a member of the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade and that organization kills Israeli civilians and anyone in a resistance group is then a legitimate target then we should also be fair and say that because almost all Israeli's have to join the army at the age of 18 (full time for 2-3 years, and reserve until they are 45) then all Israeli's should be valid targets between the ages of 18-45.

If you don't think that's fair I don't blame you, I don't even think it's appropriate.. But then we must apply the same standard to the Palestinians and say that simply being in a Palestinian resistance group does not mean that one deserves to die and is a valid target.

My Stats are not only not dodgy, they were taken from an Israeli human rights groups statistics which might even be a bit conservative. The nature of the conflict is that the Palestinians have no state and no army, the Israeli military and settlers occupy the Palestinian territories and terrorize the Palestinians, of course they are going to mount an urban guerilla warfare against the Israeli's. That is the nature of resistance, no matter what you have at your disposal, even if you don't have an army you fight. US Independence was acheived much the same way.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:27pm:

I would love a Muslim perspective. :)

The Byzantine armies and Persian armies were fighting for the Middle East, when the Christian Byzantine army took over Palestine the Jews were oppressed, when the Persians came into Palestine the Christians were oppressed and eventually the Jews too. Then the Muslims took over Palestine and both Christians and Jews were given their rights under our rule. Not a single drop of blood was shed by the Muslims on their entry into Jerusalem (which was much more different than the conquests of the Christians and Persians in those lands who massacred whole groups of people) and it was the caliph Umar bin Khattab who himself proceeded into Jerusalem, leading his donkey with his slave on it's back so the slave didn't have to walk.

The Christians and Jews were actually pretty astonished that the Caliph was dressed in simple clothing, leading allowing his slave to ride his mount when he controlled so much land.

Christians and Jews were allowed to stay under the state and given protected status by the Muslims where they lived for many more years.

To be fair, they did have the golden compass, to guide their way, and the magic pudding to help feed all the elves and pixies, and they actually rode in on unicorns, and showered the slaves with gold, and I think the genie from the lamp put on a magic show for the cheering crowds who were so relieved to be freed from all their earthly possessions.
I think I remember this one, it was in my ali baba book.
Usually only oral history gets such a thorough sanitisation, but we would never want any objective truth shoulder it's way into your religious fantasy land.

Seriously, if any religious person had to explain what they believe to a psychiatrist, they would be locked up, but call it religion, and crazy beliefs must be respected, it sure beats me why that should be so.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

To be fair, they did have the golden compass, to guide their way, and the magic pudding to help feed all the elves and pixies, and they actually rode in on unicorns, and showered the slaves with gold, and I think the genie from the lamp put on a magic show for the cheering crowds who were so relieved to be freed from all their earthly possessions. I think I remember this one, it was in my ali baba book. Usually only oral history gets such a thorough sanitisation, but we would never want any objective truth shoulder it's way into your religious fantasy land. Seriously, if any religious person had to explain what they believe to a psychiatrist, they would be locked up, but call it religion, and crazy beliefs must be respected, it sure beats me why that should be so.

Ah much like the myth that athiests are somehow neutral and peaceful when in fact secular states have been responsible for most of the bloodshed in the previous 200 years.

Not so surprising when you really don't stand for something and have no solid laws, when your laws can change with your own lusts and wants..

How about the genocide of indigenous australians Mozza? That was done by an anglo australian secular government.. it was perfectly acceptable to murder any aboriginal man, woman or child without consequence from the law, they weren't considered human beings nor counted on the census until 1962 (1965 in QLD).

So that really shows how civilized Western Anglo Secularism is doesn't it mate? And that was less than 50 years ago! The Muslims took Jerusalem and gave the Christians, Jews and even slaves more rights more than 1400 years ago then the Australian government gave indigenous Australians less than 50 years ago!

How very civilized of you Western Secularists!

Even though your time frame is wrong, the point is valid, the british society did treat aboriginals as second class citizens, many were murdered, and mistreated terribly.

The difference between our society is that we look back and condemn those actions as wrong, we change our ways, and change our laws, and evolve, and improve our society.
Islam does not admit to it's wrongs, it does not learn, it does not evolve, that is it's greatest failing.
That is if you do not count that it is a religion, and therefore totally based on fantasy.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 3:02pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 6:27pm: I would love a Muslim perspective. :) The Byzantine armies and Persian armies were fighting for the Middle East, when the Christian Byzantine army took over Palestine the Jews were oppressed, when the Persians came into Palestine the Christians were oppressed and eventually the Jews too. Then the Muslims took over Palestine and both Christians and Jews were given their rights under our rule. Not a single drop of blood was shed by the Muslims on their entry into Jerusalem (which was much more different than the conquests of the Christians and Persians in those lands who massacred whole groups of people)....

This I already know and is generally accepted.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 3:02pm:

[ ....and it was the caliph Umar bin Khattab who himself proceeded into Jerusalem, leading his donkey with his slave on it's back so the slave didn't have to walk. The Christians and Jews were actually pretty astonished that the Caliph was dressed in simple clothing, leading allowing his slave to ride his mount when he controlled so much land. Christians and Jews were allowed to stay under the state and given protected status by the Muslims where they lived for many more years.

I've not heard of this particular story about the slave and the donkey. Can this be verified independently?

I can’t see anything wrong with shooting a terrorist. Terrorists live by violence and by violence they fall.

tallowood wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:45pm:

I can’t see anything wrong with shooting a terrorist. Terrorists live by violence and by violence they fall.

According to your own logic, then all Israeli's between the age of 18-45 are legitimate targets because they are in an organization that kills many innocent people, in fact a greater percentage of civilians than the palestinians do.. how very civilized of you..

Does their ROE allow them to engage unarmed civilians legally?

No.

Does the doctrine of the opposing groups in the middle east allow them to engage unarmed civilians?

Yes.

Not the same thing Malik.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 7:47pm:

..... how very civilized of you..

I agree, it is civilised of me and it was civilised of IDF as well :)

tallowood wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 8:45pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 7:47pm: ..... how very civilized of you.. I agree, it is civilised of me and it was civilised of IDF as well :)

Yes, according to your own logic it's also civilized for the Palestinians to kill any Israeli civilian between the ages of 18-45..

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 8:55pm:

tallowood wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 8:45pm: Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 7:47pm: ..... how very civilized of you.. I agree, it is civilised of me and it was civilised of IDF as well :) Yes, according to your own logic it's also civilized for the Palestinians to kill any Israeli civilian between the ages of 18-45..

No let me to correct your misunderstanding, according to my logic it is civilised for Palestinians to kill themselves if they wish so, but they should do it in privacy of their own homes.

Also according to my logic if they try to kill Israelis they should be shot like mad dogs.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 10:29pm:

Even though your time frame is wrong, the point is valid, the british society did treat aboriginals as second class citizens, many were murdered, and mistreated terribly. The difference between our society is that we look back and condemn those actions as wrong, we change our ways, and change our laws, and evolve, and improve our society. Islam does not admit to it's wrongs, it does not learn, it does not evolve, that is it's greatest failing. That is if you do not count that it is a religion, and therefore totally based on fantasy.

This happened after the Federation of Australia so it wasn't just the British that were responsible it's Australia too.. and I'm quite sure I'm not mistaken about the dates either.

Furthermore, perhaps you can tell me what Australia has done to make up for their crimes against the indigenous Australians?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 9:04pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 10:29pm: Even though your time frame is wrong, the point is valid, the british society did treat aboriginals as second class citizens, many were murdered, and mistreated terribly. The difference between our society is that we look back and condemn those actions as wrong, we change our ways, and change our laws, and evolve, and improve our society. Islam does not admit to it's wrongs, it does not learn, it does not evolve, that is it's greatest failing. That is if you do not count that it is a religion, and therefore totally based on fantasy. This happened after the Federation of Australia so it wasn't just the British that were responsible it's Australia too.. and I'm quite sure I'm not mistaken about the dates either. Furthermore, perhaps you can tell me what Australia has done to make up for their crimes against the indigenous Australians?

What that has to do with IDF shooting a terrorist?

easel wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 7:58pm:

Does their ROE allow them to engage unarmed civilians legally? No. Does the doctrine of the opposing groups in the middle east allow them to engage unarmed civilians? Yes Not the same thing Malik.

Israeli ROE does allow and encourage Israeli soldiers to shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians including children. It's exactly the same.

tallowood wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 9:10pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 9:04pm: mozzaok wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 10:29pm: Even though your time frame is wrong, the point is valid, the british society did treat aboriginals as second class citizens, many were murdered, and mistreated terribly. The difference between our society is that we look back and condemn those actions as wrong, we change our ways, and change our laws, and evolve, and improve our society. Islam does not admit to it's wrongs, it does not learn, it does not evolve, that is it's greatest failing. That is if you do not count that it is a religion, and therefore totally based on fantasy. This happened after the Federation of Australia so it wasn't just the British that were responsible it's Australia too.. and I'm quite sure I'm not mistaken about the dates either. Furthermore, perhaps you can tell me what Australia has done to make up for their crimes against the indigenous Australians? What that has to do with IDF shooting a terrorist?

Perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to go and read back from the beginning regarding this issue.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 9:22pm:

easel wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 7:58pm: Does their ROE allow them to engage unarmed civilians legally? No. Does the doctrine of the opposing groups in the middle east allow them to engage unarmed civilians? Yes Not the same thing Malik. Israeli ROE does allow and encourage Israeli soldiers to shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians including children. It's exactly the same.

For someone who claims to know a lot about IDF tactics etc, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

The IDF's rules of engagement for a low-intensity conflict authorise soldiers to fight rocks and petrol bombs with tear gas and rubber-coated bullets. But when troops come under gun-fire, they are authorised to fire back with live ammunition. Molotov cocktails, too, can come under this authorisation. "We are very strict with our firing orders," IDF spokesman Elian Sztulman told BBC News Online. "We only shoot live ammunition when we are shot at."

Undisciplined soldiers does not equate to what you have just written.

Perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to go and read back from the beginning regarding this issue.

Malik I'd also like to know what the aborigine situation has to do with this. Perhaps you think two wrongs make a right? You could jsutify anything with that sort of nonsense.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 9:56pm:

Perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to go and read back from the beginning regarding this issue. Malik I'd also like to know what the aborigine situation has to do with this. Perhaps you think two wrongs make a right? You could jsutify anything with that sort of nonsense.

I was responding to the hypocrisy in his holier than thou attitude, him acting as if the West had not been responsible for any crimes when the truth is that our own country has been responsible for the horrific treatment of indigenous Australians.

I didn't say that two wrongs make a right.

I just don't like the hypocrisy.

So anyway Malik, you know nothing about Israeli military tactics, whereas you previously claimed you do, because you study International Relations?

I don't think I can take anything you say seriously anymore.

You are just a typical know-all know-nothing uni student with a political agenda.

easel wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 11:05pm:

So anyway Malik, you know nothing about Israeli military tactics, whereas you previously claimed you do, because you study International Relations? I don't think I can take anything you say seriously anymore. You are just a typical know-all know-nothing uni student with a political agenda.

Actually I DO know about Israeli military tactics.. I don't believe you have proven that I don't.. You're just claiming I don't.

Israeli ROE do include shooting unarmed civilians.

him acting as if the West had not been responsible for any crimes

No-one is acting like that. Pointing out that our ancestors did horrible things is not some kind of excuse for people who continue to do so today. It's a red herring.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 9:23pm:

tallowood wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 9:10pm: What that has to do with IDF shooting a terrorist? Perhaps it'd be a good idea for you to go and read back from the beginning regarding this issue.

I had and I did not see any connection between IDF shooting a terrorist and Australian aboriginal issue.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 11:13pm:

easel wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 11:05pm: So anyway Malik, you know nothing about Israeli military tactics, whereas you previously claimed you do, because you study International Relations? I don't think I can take anything you say seriously anymore. You are just a typical know-all know-nothing uni student with a political agenda. Actually I DO know about Israeli military tactics.. I don't believe you have proven that I don't.. You're just claiming I don't. Israeli ROE do include shooting unarmed civilians.

Please supply Israeli ROE documentation so we all can examine it and see if you telling the truth or not. Without such an evidence your statement about knowing isn't worth even a teaspoon of a yesteryear snow.

tallowood wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 2:24am:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 11:13pm: easel wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 11:05pm: So anyway Malik, you know nothing about Israeli military tactics, whereas you previously claimed you do, because you study International Relations? I don't think I can take anything you say seriously anymore. You are just a typical know-all know-nothing uni student with a political agenda. Actually I DO know about Israeli military tactics.. I don't believe you have proven that I don't.. You're just claiming I don't. Israeli ROE do include shooting unarmed civilians. Please supply Israeli ROE documentation so we all can examine it and see if you telling the truth or not. Without such an evidence your statement about knowing isn't worth even a teaspoon of a yesteryear snow.

Most Israeli ROE are verbally given and not written down so you're going to have a problem finding it.

Didn't you watch this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPsH9VaT140

Malik, stop talking out of your arse.

ROE has to be written down somewhere. It is the law, otherwise commanders would be able to make their own rules up and have defacto private armies with private rules.

Back a page or so I posted a bit of Israeli ROE.

I assume you are all talking about the ROE for arrest - hence the link to the video.

Actually, the full ROE for arrest (4 steps - command, warning shot, shoot to main, shoot to kill) are written down in IDF manuals and are implemented in general situations. The IDF ROE are classified - high command eyes only. It is carefully worded by legal advisors and has for "special rules" for different fronts. What the special rules are is open to interpretation by each officer on the field at the time. The shortened version of  the ROE is - "Halt!" [Wait 5 second then shoot to kill] which is usually implemented in border or hostile situations. Whether the IDF approve or tacitly support the shortened version is unknown (it is against the Geneva Convention Conduct of War) however, officers are known to have ordered it.

Thanks for the clarification Acid Monkey.

Malik Shakur wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 11:41am:

.... Didn't you watch this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPsH9VaT140

I had a look and there is nowhere proof of your claim that “Israeli ROE does allow and encourage Israeli soldiers to shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians including children”. Therefore it appears that your statement is deliberately false or may be you are just misinformed by radical Islamic or/and anti Jewish and/or pro terrorists propaganda.

tallowood wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 7:32pm:

I had a look and there is nowhere proof of your claim that “Israeli ROE does allow and encourage Israeli soldiers to shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians including children”. Therefore it appears that your statement is deliberately false or may be you are just misinformed by radical Islamic or/and anti Jewish and/or pro terrorists propaganda.

Yeah...of course its false. Cause the IDF have never been known to target and kill children...have they.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/middle_east/palestine/lest_we_forget.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/israelandthepalestinians3

let me guess...pro-terrorist propaganda huh. These children never really existed....

Its just propaganda.  ::)

Here's a few quotes from former IDF soldiers who've spoken out about the immoral and unjust activities they regularly engaged in during their service:


Quote:

"You start to aim your rifle at kids and see them through the scope of your rifle and take a picture. Then you aim at your friends and take a picture. The rifle is no longer a killing machine; the rifle becomes a part of your game, the way to pass time."

Quote:

During 2002 through 2003 there were more than 500 days of curfew in Hebron. And we would lift it every few days so people could get food for maybe two or three hours. But if someone were to leave after these hours to get food for his family, then he would be detained for five, six, or seven hours. You must educate them.

Quote:

"If you call on a Palestinian to show his ID and he smiles too much, then that could be two hours or it could be eight hours. It just depends on which side of the bed you woke up on that morning." Over time, Shaul says that the Palestinians stop being people and simply become objects.

Quote:

"Believe it or not, the first houses we entered, before we left, we washed the floors," Shaul recalls. "This is what we called an enlightened occupation." Eventually, the units would get more and more comfortable in the houses, and over a period of time the soldiers would become bored and they would start to break things.

Quote:

Once, when Shaul's battalion was doing an operation in city of Ramallah, a World Cup match was underway. "We looked around and found a house, entered it, kicked the family out, watched the game, and when it was over we left and went back to our mission," he says.

Quote:

"So you pull the trigger you spray the area you pray that the less amount has been fired and then there is four or five seconds of tense quiet. You pray you haven't hit innocent people. But the next day you're less tense, the third day, and then after a week it becomes the most exciting moment of the day.

Quote:

YEHUDA SHAUL: It's not a game, it's a grenade machine gun. I did it every night for three… almost three months. Every night around 50 grenades inside a neighbourhood. That was my first experience in Hebron.

Quote:

AHARON BLEMKER: At night we put snipers in the roof, and one sniper killed a guy from about 300 metres, and I can tell you from experience at night from 300 metres, even with night vision, you can't see if a guy has a weapon or not. So here's someone walking down the street, and he shot him, and then he was very proud about how he saw the whole head explode.

Quote:

AHARON BLEMKER: After a while people start stealing things. In the beginning it's just souvenirs, it goes into stealing cigarettes and then to stealing money. We never stopped to think about it. We never talked about is it wrong or not, we just did it, and people started after a while beating people up just for fun. It's unnecessary things.

Quote:

AVICHAI CHARON: And you're throwing 6-year-olds, women, children, elderly people into the street, and then you're closing them in their own house, in jail. And even for a 60-year-old person that wants to pee right now, they have to ask permission. You stop thinking of it as people's homes, as people's lives, 'cause you can't deal with it anymore, you can't cope with 6-year-olds that look into your face with tears in their eyes. So you don't look at them.

This is truly despicable stuff, you support this kind of stuff tallowood?

Quote:

Here's a few quotes from former IDF soldiers who've spoken out about the immoral and unjust activities they regularly engaged in during their service:

How about a source for that?

Part of it was taken from this interview with the ABC's Mark Willacy. Parts were taken from another interview, which I don't have the link for now, but I will certainly find it for you.

Also you can just goto the website of the group the ex-soldiers have formed, called Breaking The Silence where you'll probably find these interviews and more.

Thanks.

Quote:

....they weren't considered human beings nor counted on the census until 1962 (1965 in QLD).

Wrong.  Where do you get this rubbish from?

In terms of common logical sense, it is very hard to derive any kind of connection or possibilities,i ask those people who defend the IDF and i want to inquire something, im neither in support for the Israeli or the Palestinians, but by looking at this picture, several things doesnt connect.

First of all when he had his clothes on, he was seen to be hand cuffed and was kneeling on the floor, after the next pictures, he was stripped naked and bloodied on the floor, so how does this makes sense? If he was shot while standing up and without handcuffed would make perfect sense why he should be taken down, but from this pictures from either side, it doesnt make any sense and the only source of information we can acquire are from the Israeli side.

Another confusing thing is they say it was right to do so? There is not even an admittance of a mistake or a misguided attempt to disarm a Palestinian simply to label him as one of a group of Suicide Bomber or affiliation to whom ever gives them the right to execute people? If he had a affiliate someone simply because he had a brother or a friend who joins the suicide brigade, so an example must be set? What is the means of action in which this stand for?

Is this a provocation or instigation against the suicide brigade? not only you shot a person who was not armed with explosive, but this also ENDANGER ISRAELI LIVES.. doing so would have given the opportunity for the suicide brigade to believe that better to blow yourself up than to be shot helplessly like this, is this IDF way of protecting Israeli life? This doesnt make any sense..