5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by P F Tinmore, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. P F Tinmore
    Online

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    GAZA, (PIC)-- Israeli troops, deployed in the east of the Shouhada cemetery and east of the town of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian farmers, injuring five of them on Friday, locals said.

    Dr. Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told Quds Press Agency that five Palestinians were hospitalized with moderate wounds after being shot by Israeli occupation troops.

    This incident is to be added to the ongoing occupation breaches of the truce signed on 21st of November between Palestinian resistance and the occupation under Egyptian auspices.

    The IOF killed two Palestinians, injured dozens of others, arrested about 30 fishermen and bombed and confiscated a number of fishing boats in Gaza Sea, after signing the truce.

    5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza
     
  2. deltex1
    Offline

    deltex1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    18,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    295
    Location:
    Near the Alamo
    Ratings:
    +13,652
    What kind of IEDs were the farmers planting?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  3. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    Moderate wounds? From Israeli soldiers? Really? They are better shots than that! If they were shot by Israeli soldiers, they would be dead.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. sealadaigh
    Offline

    sealadaigh BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,721
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    THE NO REP ZONE
    Ratings:
    +129
    i think, because this is the clean debate zone, that we should make every effort to avoid using very obviously biased sources, to include propaganda sites and hate sites. the referring to the "IDF" as the "IOF" is a dead give-away.

    we do not have to resort to that and i do not want to put myself in a compromising position, particularly in this forum, of not being able to object to the many, extraordinarily biased sources to which the pro-israeli posters resort in order to defend israeli acts of genocide and war crimes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/w...nd-5-palestinians-in-gaza.html?ref=middleeast

    Five Palestinians wounded by IDF fire on Gaza border - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

    i very sincerely doubt if the USA government would find it acceptable if the mexican police or military declared a "no go" zone across the border in california, arizona, new mexico and texas and started picking off our citizens. i think we would go to war.

    thank you for establishing, with this incident and at least one prior incident where a palestinian was killed, that israel has violated the cease fire.
     
  5. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Litre of the Band

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +3,261
    What evidence to do you have, to lead you to that conclusion?

    What right does Israel have to question what the Pals plant on their own side of the fence?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Litre of the Band

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +3,261
    The source of a claim, does not decide the "truth or falsehood", of that claim. It's merely the citation one uses to show their point has merit. A person's own feelings towards a particular website, is irrelevent. It's more important to provide evidence to the contrary.

    Saying the IDF should not be referred to as the IOF, is not a biased position from a hate site. It is the position of every member state of the UN and is in compliance with the legal definition of this area for the last 45 years. Why do you think they are referred to as the "occupied territories"? Trying to infer there is no "occupation" after 45 years and in light of the fact that there isn't one country on the planet that has recognized Israel's right to that land (including the Israeli Supreme Court), is a pretty biased position in itself.

    On the subject of "no-fly" zones, you are correct, we would not allow it. Unfortunatly, we do that all the time to other nations and that level of hypocrisy (from us), makes me sick! Note that my use of the term "us", is to denote that as American citizens, we are responsible for the actions of our government, because everything they do, is done in our name, it is not to be construed as a personal attack on you, as a person.
     
  7. sealadaigh
    Offline

    sealadaigh BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,721
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    THE NO REP ZONE
    Ratings:
    +129
    do you really want the discussion on this forum to sink to the level of that on the israel palestine forum. i don't.

    referring to the IDF as the "IOF" is not the position of the UN.

    calling the IDF the IOF reflects bias, just as the blanket labeling of those involved in a legitimate struggle for the autonomy of their people as "terrorists" reflects bias.

    if you think that using biased sites and/or hate ssites is the way to win these "battles" when the truth is clearly on your side, then you are playing the game by their rules, and it is a fool's game.

    look at the responses by the pro-zionist posters. do you really wnt to go that route. i can go there. i happen to be very good at it. i see no need though.

    let's keep it clean.

    i provided two, very legitimate, mainstream sources that said that israel is breaking the cease fire. let them argue with that.

    maybe you should go back and reread what i said.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  8. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Litre of the Band

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +3,261
    Sink to what level? I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

    No it isn't! They're apples and oranges. On the one hand, you have an actual occupation, by a belligerent force that is from Israel; on the other, you're broadstroking an entire population of people as terrorists, of which many, don't commit any acts of terrorism at all.

    If Israel calls their military, the Israeli Defense Force, why is it wrong to call their military that occupys the West Bank, the Israeli Occupation Force?

    That's a matter of perspective and subjectivity. Just because you think a site is biased, doesn't mean the site is biased. In truth, all sites are biased to some extent. So why even go there?

    I agree with that, but that's not what we're doing here.

    I thought they changed that to "civil"?

    I don't consider an Israeli newspaper as an un-biased source when being critical of the Israeli government. See what I mean? You can play this source game until the cows come home, so why go down that road? Why can't you deal with what the source is claiming, instead of the obvious ad hominem of killing the messenger. I thought fallacious forms of logic were prohibited in this forum? Ad hominems ARE a fallacious arguments.

    I understood you the first time.
     
  9. P F Tinmore
    Online

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,926
    I have some agreement with you that we should not use sites that call names because that shows a bias. I do not use sites, for example, that call Israel Nazis. However, calling Israeli forces "defense" is a misnomer. Forces that do nothing but enforce an occupation can more accurately be called occupation forces. It could be said that using the term IDF is in itself propaganda.

    Of course, if we did not use sources that called names that would eliminate the entire MSM.
     
  10. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Litre of the Band

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +3,261
    Maybe we should call the ones enforcing the checkpoints in the West Bank, the Israeli Transit Authority?
     

Share This Page