Another dead Kid.

[Roudy]

Sounds like messing with the IDF and getting killed over it, is in their blood.

Accounts of Palestinian teen's death differ - National Israel News | Haaretz


Accounts of Palestinian teen's death differ

B’tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights that stones were being thrown at soldiers.

Children began to throw stones at the soldiers, as well as other Israelis nearby. According to reports from the squad leader, the soldiers initiated the protocols for apprehending suspects, and fired only into the air.

Wajih al-Ramahii’s father and grandfather have served time in prison due to their activism with Fatah. His father was in prison from 1977 to 1992. Ayman al-Ramahi also stated that between 2000 and 2008, two other members of the al-Rahimi family were killed by IDF gunfire, Mohammed Ahmed, 14-years-old, and Mohammed Jamal, 21-years-old. Wajih’s older brother is currently in custody and awaiting trial, and two of his cousins are also currently being held in Israeli jails.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The Israeli sniper shot my son as if he hunted a bird’

'The Israeli sniper shot my son as if he hunted a bird'

Accounts of the story differ.

Accounts of Palestinian teen's death differ - National Israel News | Haaretz

How do they differ?

Read the link and it will inform you how the story differs.

 

[Kondor3]

So, is the assertion from B'Tselem, Haaretz, etc., that the Palestinians were throwing rocks and stuff at the IDF soldier(s) who are accused of this fence-line or watch-tower shooting?

Don't know if it's actually TRUE or not yet, but, why aren't I surprised to hear something like this, after our pro-Palestinian colleagues go all orgasmic over the opportunity to capitalize upon the death of another child for propaganda purposes?

THAT is why it's always best to at least have a TINY bit of insight into BOTH sides of a story before you start throwing-down unsubstantiated (or one-sided substantiation) accusations, only to learn later that there MAY have been sufficient provocation.

Looks like we all need more information before reaching any sort of even vaguely objective conclusions on this particular incident.

It's what comes of only listening to one side of the story.

Duh.

Another clinical case of Premature Articulation?

 

[GHook93]

Report: Israeli troops kill Palestinian teen in West Bank


Palestinian medical source reports that IDF troops shoot, kill 15-year-old Palestinian during clash in Jelazoun refugee camp, near West Bank city of Ramallah. IDF investigating report

AFP Published: 12.07.13, 19:25 / Israel News

Israeli troops shot dead a 15-year-old Palestinian during a Saturday night clash in Jelazoun refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, a Palestinian medical source told AFP.

He named the youth as Wajih al-Ramhi and said that he was dead on arrival at Ramallah, from a single gunshot.

The victim's father said that an IDF soldier shot a single bullet in the direction of his son from a watch tower. According to the father, his son was not taking part in clashes with the IDF.

Report: Israeli troops kill Palestinian teen in West Bank - Israel News, Ynetnews

I know, I know. There is always a good reason to target Palestinian kids.

As long as Jewish people and pro-Israeli posters keep excusing this and do not insist upon independent, neutral party investigations, this will continue. Has the IDF, in the hundreds of deaths of this sort ever received more than the very rare slap on the wrist.

An army is a reflection of the people.

Easy to toss stones for a glass house, huh? How about this. Let me take a large heavy rock and toss it at your head in and effort to seriously injury or kill you and then you are not allowed to fight back. Would you call that justified? Fucking hypocrite.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The child attacked and killed was not participating in the hostilities, targeting him to kill is an unlawful killing under international law.

It is not relevant what others were doing.

The child Israel murdered was not a proper military target.

 

[Kondor3]

The child attacked and killed was not participating in the hostilities...

Given that there are now reports to the contrary, such a position is no longer entirely reliable, until it is competently investigated.

"...targeting him to kill is an unlawful killing under international law..."

Only if it can be proven that (1) he was not engaged in hostilities and (2) he was not the victim of collateral fire in the direction of others who WERE so engaged.

And, given the recent surfacing of reports that shed doubt upon the one-sided Palestinian accounts, such matters remain open to debate and remain to be proven.

"...It is not relevant what others were doing..."

It IS relevant if IDF fire (1) existed at-all (as opposed to a Palestinian round killing him), (2) was directed at a 'hostile', or (3) was the accidental result of riot-suppression fire in his general direction, against those nearby who were engaged in hostilities.

"...The child Israel murdered was not a proper military target."

We do not yet know (1) whether it was an Israeli bullet that killed him nor (2) the circumstances under which any such IDF round was fired.

Until we know the answers to those questions, we cannot say, at-law, whether this Palestinian child was (1) a legitimate target nor (2) whether the shooting was intentional or accidental (collateral); consequentially, it is far too early to label this as a 'murder'.

The account(s) provided by Palestinians have no more weight at-law than those coming from the IDF.

And, it would appear, accounts are beginning to surface from the Israeli side of the fence.

Let the information flow... let both sides testify... let both sides contend... let the truth come out.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The child attacked and killed was not participating in the hostilities...

Given that there are now reports to the contrary, such a position is no longer entirely reliable, until it is competently investigated.

"...targeting him to kill is an unlawful killing under international law..."

Only if it can be proven that (1) he was not engaged in hostilities and (2) he was not the victim of collateral fire in the direction of others who WERE so engaged.

And, given the recent surfacing of reports that shed doubt upon the one-sided Palestinian accounts, such matters remain open to debate and remain to be proven.

"...It is not relevant what others were doing..."

It IS relevant if IDF fire (1) existed at-all (as opposed to a Palestinian round killing him), (2) was directed at a 'hostile', or (3) was the accidental result of riot-suppression fire in his general direction, against those nearby who were engaged in hostilities.

"...The child Israel murdered was not a proper military target."

We do not yet know (1) whether it was an Israeli bullet that killed him nor (2) the circumstances under which any such IDF round was fired.

Until we know the answers to those questions, we cannot say, at-law, whether this Palestinian child was (1) a legitimate target nor (2) whether the shooting was intentional or accidental (collateral); consequentially, it is far too early to label this as a 'murder'.

The account(s) provided by Palestinians have no more weight at-law than those coming from the IDF.

And, it would appear, accounts are beginning to surface from the Israeli side of the fence.

Let the information flow... let both sides testify... let both sides contend... let the truth come out.

The only report I have read is that the child was not participating in the hostilities and he was targeted.

You have other facts, you bring them forward.

I am not an apologist for Zionist child murderers like you are.

 

[Roudy]

The child attacked and killed was not participating in the hostilities, targeting him to kill is an unlawful killing under international law.

It is not relevant what others were doing.

The child Israel murdered was not a proper military target.

Really.....so this child that comes from a terrorist family wasn't involved in attacks on the soldiers. And you know this how...because the voices in your head said so?

 

[Kondor3]

The child attacked and killed was not participating in the hostilities...

Given that there are now reports to the contrary, such a position is no longer entirely reliable, until it is competently investigated.


Only if it can be proven that (1) he was not engaged in hostilities and (2) he was not the victim of collateral fire in the direction of others who WERE so engaged.

And, given the recent surfacing of reports that shed doubt upon the one-sided Palestinian accounts, such matters remain open to debate and remain to be proven.


It IS relevant if IDF fire (1) existed at-all (as opposed to a Palestinian round killing him), (2) was directed at a 'hostile', or (3) was the accidental result of riot-suppression fire in his general direction, against those nearby who were engaged in hostilities.

"...The child Israel murdered was not a proper military target."

We do not yet know (1) whether it was an Israeli bullet that killed him nor (2) the circumstances under which any such IDF round was fired.

Until we know the answers to those questions, we cannot say, at-law, whether this Palestinian child was (1) a legitimate target nor (2) whether the shooting was intentional or accidental (collateral); consequentially, it is far too early to label this as a 'murder'.

The account(s) provided by Palestinians have no more weight at-law than those coming from the IDF.

And, it would appear, accounts are beginning to surface from the Israeli side of the fence.

Let the information flow... let both sides testify... let both sides contend... let the truth come out.

The only report I have read is that the child was not participating in the hostilities and he was targeted.

You have other facts, you bring them forward.

I am not an apologist for Zionist child murderers like you are.

Yes, it is clear to all in the audience that you have only read one report.

One account.

One side.

The side that fits-in best with your own pro-Palestinian agenda and propagandizing.

I have 'other facts' to bring forward?

Besides the 'fact' that the chlid was not participating in hostilities?

That, in itself, is not established 'fact'.

We only have the highly questionable word of one side in the matter.

Until both sides have been heard in this matter, the only 'fact' that we have on our hands is a dead kid.

How that child died, and by whose hand, and under what circumstances, are all up for debate and interpretation.

I do not rule out the possibility of a non-righteous IDF shooting.

I do not make excuses for them.

I seek the truth.

And I submit (to the audience, not to you, because it's pointless) that we are going to need to hear from both sides, with substantive detail, before we can even BEGIN our journey to 'The Truth' in this matter.

That strikes me as a wee bit more objective than your own approach in this matter, as demonstrated to date, but that's just me.

We are now beginning to see the Israeli side speak up.

I will be interested to hear THEIR side of the story as well, before precipitously racing to judgment before all (or any) of the 'facts' are in.

I am entirely biased in favor of Israel but even a biased and subjective bloke like me can want to hear all the salient facts before he makes up his mind on such a thing.

You cannot say the same, more's the pity.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I read multiple articles that all report the very same thing, Israel targeted and killed a Palestinian child.

Such acts are unlawful killings and unlawful under provisions of international law.

I repeat, I make a choice to refuse to be an apologist for Israel's child murderers.

 

[Hollie]

I read multiple articles that all report the very same thing, Israel targeted and killed a Palestinian child.

Such acts are unlawful killings and unlawful under provisions of international law.

I repeat, I make a choice to refuse to be an apologist for Israel's child murderers.

That's quite a waffle when in the preceding post you admitted reading only one article.

Whatever lie works for the moment if fine, until the lie is exposed.

 

[Roudy]

It's called Palestinian mentality.

Thou shalt not throw big rock at soldiers head and expect your ass not to get shot.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

This child killing may very well be the case that gets Israel before the ICC.

It certainly is time for that.

Bargouhti has called for an "end to negotiations and for the International Criminal Court to try Israel and its leaders for war crimes committed against the Palestinian people, including the murder of the al-Ramahi child."

Thousands mourn child shot dead by Israeli sniper in al-Jalazun | Maan News Agency

 

[Kondor3]

I read multiple articles that all report the very same thing, Israel targeted and killed a Palestinian child...

You, YOURSELF, just told us a few minutes ago that you only read ONE, as seen below...

The only report I have read is that the child was not participating in the hostilities and he was targeted...

You can't even keep your story straight and consistent long enough to avoid putting both conflicting claims on the SAME FRIGGING PAGE !!!

Pfffffftttttt!!!

"...Such acts are unlawful killings and unlawful under provisions of international law..."

Only if...

1. it can be established that it was an Israeli small-arms round which killed him.

2. it can be established that the kid was not engaged in hostilities

3. it can be established that the kid was not accidentally hit while in the presence of others who were engaged in hostilities.

4. the Israeli side has been heard-from in the same level of detail and attention as the Palestinian.

Satisfy those criteria and you might have a ball-game, after all, in advancing such claims.

Until then, you've just got a dead kid on your hands - Cause and Circumstances of Death Unknown.

Until then, your so-called 'facts' are merely unsubstantiated, one-sided assertions, and have zero effect at-law.

Until then, no violation of International Law may legitimately be said to have occurred.

:..I repeat, I make a choice to refuse to be an apologist for Israel's child murderers."

Nobody is making apologies for anyone in this narrow context.

Conversely, nobody has murdered anyone, insofar as we know, at law.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel murdered this child.

Zionist's refusal to accept the truth about Israels killings of children in Palestine does nothing to the change the truth about these killings.

I embrace the truth about Israel's murder of children in Palestine.

Zionists defend Israel's murders or lie and find a way to pretend the murders never happened.

One would think they would tire of living a life of lies and tire of defending baby killers.

I guess in these Zionists there is simply a sick attraction for the killing of children.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel murdered this child.

Zionist's refusal to accept the truth about Israels killings of children in Palestine does nothing to the change the truth about these killings.

I embrace the truth about Israel's murder of children in Palestine.

Zionists defend Israel's murders or lie and find a way to pretend the murders never happened.

One would think they would tire of living a life of lies and tire of defending baby killers.

I guess in these Zionists there is simply a sick attraction for the killing of children.

That's a fine pro-Palestinian propaganda speech, Frau Goebbels, but it has no basis in fact nor law.

We have legal processes to shield us from this very sort of one-sided kangaroo court pronouncement.

Wake us up when you've got something that will hold up in a real court.

Wake us up when both sides have weighed-in and told their side of the story.

Until then, all you've got is propaganda hype, and no science, and no basis in fact, and no law, to bring to bear upon the case.

 

[Roudy]

Israel murdered this child.

Zionist's refusal to accept the truth about Israels killings of children in Palestine does nothing to the change the truth about these killings.

I embrace the truth about Israel's murder of children in Palestine.

Zionists defend Israel's murders or lie and find a way to pretend the murders never happened.

One would think they would tire of living a life of lies and tire of defending baby killers.

I guess in these Zionists there is simply a sick attraction for the killing of children.

That's a fine pro-Palestinian propaganda speech, Frau Goebbels, but it has no basis in fact nor law.

We have legal processes to shield us from this very sort of one-sided kangaroo court pronouncement.

Wake us up when you've got something that will hold up in a real court.

Wake us up when both sides have weighed-in and told their side of the story.

Until then, all you've got is propaganda hype, and no science, and no basis in fact, and no law, to bring to bear upon the case.

Until then all she's got and ever will have are lies and CRAP.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Witnesses who report a child who was not participating in the hostilities was murdered in cold blood is not propaganda, it is called evidence of murder/an unlawful killing under international law.

 

[Hollie]

Witnesses who report a child who was not participating in the hostilities was murdered in cold blood is not propaganda, it is called evidence of murder/an unlawful killing under international law.

You're still droning on about this because you have a need and desire to convince yourself that your irrational hatreds are justified.

 

[Kondor3]

Witnesses who report a child who was not participating in the hostilities was murdered in cold blood is not propaganda, it is called evidence of murder/an unlawful killing under international law.

And when the Israeli side produces witnesses who say otherwise?

Impasse.

Besides...

Your witnesses and their motives are at least as 'suspect' and requiring a close and skeptical scrutiny as any witnesses supplied by the IDF et al.

You have no 'fact' yet, other than the poor dead kid's body.

You have one-sided, hostile testimony, by people who were (now, according to B'Tselem, unmasked as) throwing rocks, etc., at the Israeli fence-line personnel.

It would go much better for you if you had video of both the shooter and the victim, and the events surrounding the shooting, so that it would be possible to take into account the crowd and its actions and the victim's position and involvement relative to same.

It would also go much better for you if you had an autopsy report that included the spent-bullet and had the round been identified as IDF munitions and had ballistics data had been published, etc.

But it is also necessary to concede that some or all of that may not exist or may not be available to a law-court, so, we are faced with making-do with what is on-hand.

Somebody else (including an errant Palestinian round) could have killed that poor kid.

And it's entirely possible (even probable?) that it was an IDF round that killed the kid.

But if the IDF did shoot him, we need to know WHY - the circumstances behind the shooting.

Not what the lowlifes throwing rocks and putting kids into danger SAY was the reason.

We are a long, long way from indicting.

Hell, we haven't even established Probable Cause yet, or heard from the other side, to any appreciable extent.

All we have is the word of a bunch of Angry Rioters, and that may not be good enough; in either the Court of World Opinion OR at the ICC.