IDF murders children playing on beach

[P F Tinmore]

The lengths at which the Israeli propagandists go to justify the murder of children is truly remarkable. In any case, the the Israelis do what they always do, when unable to deny the event took place, they just claim it was an accident.

"Gaza beach attack: Israel 'struck boys in error'"

"An Israeli military investigation has cleared its forces of wrongdoing over the deaths of four Palestinian boys in an attack in Gaza during the 2014 war. It concluded the boys, killed in missile strikes on a beach, had been mistaken for Hamas militants preparing to attack Israeli forces."

Isn't that precious.

Gaza beach attack Israel struck boys in error - BBC News

Show me one post where someone justified the attack. Also, how do you know it was murder? How do you know it wasn't an errant shell, human error?

and legal expert say Israel went too far to avoid casualties

Article to Criticize Israel for Excessive Warnings in Gaza The Investigative Project on Terrorism

One thing pro Palestinians forget to mention is that if Hamas never launched any rockets, the entire war would have never happened.

One thing pro Israelis forget to mention is that if the European foreigners did not go to take over Palestine, the entire war would have never happened.

One thing you forget is that arab muslims took over 78% of Palestine, and the war started back in 1917 before Europeans or anyone took over anything.

WTF!

You need to read up.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel Commits War Crimes While World Turns A Blind Eye | Interview with Harry Fear - YouTube

While this video may have some merit to this thread, I find that it is highly motivated against any sort of 'neutral' reporting. I then looked into how one would or could get into Gaza. Regardless of the restrictions on the Israeli side, there are several restrictions on the Gaza side.

So basically, you have to have a 'host' or be a reporter or something. That smacks of the Palestinians controlling what outsiders can get into Gaza for a 'neutral' view. Or IMHO, if your view isn't going to be what they want to see and/or report, you will not be allowed in.

As your video proved when Harry Fear said that he was informed "not to point your cameras at this or that".

And that is when I stopped watching.

Next?

By 'neutral' reporting do you mean regurgitating Israeli press releases?

No reporting the truth and facts from all sides. That way you get a balanced view of what really happens. Problem is when this is done you claim it is hasbara because it tells the truth about the palestinians

You don't get your information from all sides. Every time I post something you have never heard of it.

EVIDENCE as I have heard all your islamonzi propaganda before, I just choose to ignore it

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Commits War Crimes While World Turns A Blind Eye | Interview with Harry Fear - YouTube

While this video may have some merit to this thread, I find that it is highly motivated against any sort of 'neutral' reporting. I then looked into how one would or could get into Gaza. Regardless of the restrictions on the Israeli side, there are several restrictions on the Gaza side.

So basically, you have to have a 'host' or be a reporter or something. That smacks of the Palestinians controlling what outsiders can get into Gaza for a 'neutral' view. Or IMHO, if your view isn't going to be what they want to see and/or report, you will not be allowed in.

As your video proved when Harry Fear said that he was informed "not to point your cameras at this or that".

And that is when I stopped watching.

Next?

By 'neutral' reporting do you mean regurgitating Israeli press releases?

No reporting the truth and facts from all sides. That way you get a balanced view of what really happens. Problem is when this is done you claim it is hasbara because it tells the truth about the palestinians

You don't get your information from all sides. Every time I post something you have never heard of it.

EVIDENCE as I have heard all your islamonzi propaganda before, I just choose to ignore it

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Locals rule.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

Although the attack was witnessed by a Guardian reporter, no attempt was made by the Israeli military investigators to seek a statement.

"it was decided to conduct an aerial attack against the figures which had been identified, after all the necessary authorizations for an attack had been obtained, and after a civilian presence in the area had been ruled out.

“When one of the identified figures entered into the remains of the container which had been attacked on the day prior to the incident, one missile was fired from the air towards the container and the adjoining shed. As a result of this attack, it appeared that one of the figures identified was hit. Following this attack, the rest of the figures began to run in the direction of the compound’s exit. Shortly before their exit from the compound, an additional missile was fired from the air towards them, which hit the figures in question after they had exited the compound.”
Israel exonerates itself over Gaza beach killings of four children last year World news The Guardian

It was not collateral damage, they were the target of the drone strikes

 

[aris2chat]

Israel exceeded legal standards in Gaza conflict military group tells UN The Times of Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

That's because that is not what happened. That is the Palestinian propaganda version of the story.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.
Well said Rocco

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

That's because that is not what happened. That is the Palestinian propaganda version of the story.

Are you saying that the Zionists did no go from Europe to Palestine to take over the country?

 

[fanger]

It was Not collateral damage, they were the intended target and 1 missile could be unintentional, but not the second missile as the boys were running up the beach, If you dont know what your firing at you hold fire

 

[Phoenall]

While this video may have some merit to this thread, I find that it is highly motivated against any sort of 'neutral' reporting. I then looked into how one would or could get into Gaza. Regardless of the restrictions on the Israeli side, there are several restrictions on the Gaza side.

So basically, you have to have a 'host' or be a reporter or something. That smacks of the Palestinians controlling what outsiders can get into Gaza for a 'neutral' view. Or IMHO, if your view isn't going to be what they want to see and/or report, you will not be allowed in.

As your video proved when Harry Fear said that he was informed "not to point your cameras at this or that".

And that is when I stopped watching.

Next?

By 'neutral' reporting do you mean regurgitating Israeli press releases?

No reporting the truth and facts from all sides. That way you get a balanced view of what really happens. Problem is when this is done you claim it is hasbara because it tells the truth about the palestinians

You don't get your information from all sides. Every time I post something you have never heard of it.

EVIDENCE as I have heard all your islamonzi propaganda before, I just choose to ignore it

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

Might be, but in this case it isn't. When I see the same old same old then I just ignore it

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

You never did prove how murdering children is resistance, And not all Jews come from Europe as monte's link showed many came from nations close at hand.

 

[Phoenall]

It was Not collateral damage, they were the intended target and 1 missile could be unintentional, but not the second missile as the boys were running up the beach, If you dont know what your firing at you hold fire

Proof from a non partisan source.............

 

[fanger]

An eyewitness account of the attack that killed four children on Gaza beach - Diplomacy and Defense - - Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

 

[RoccoR]

(OFF TOPIC)
P F Tinmore, et al,

It was not a "defensive position." I do not believe I made such a claim; that under Articles 4 and 6 --- encouragement and facilitation of Jewish immigration to affect the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, was a defensive position.

I believe the claim was that it was a best course of action decision made by the Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention in 1920. The Allied Powers having accepted receivership of the territories by means of the unconditional surrender in the Mudros Armistice and the Treaty of Sevres.

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

(COMMENT)

The defense of the territory, within such boundaries as was determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to which the Mandate for Palestine applied (Short Title: Palestine made by the Order in Council) was the sole concern of the Allied Powers; and not the indigenous population. The responsibilities for the defense of the territories were relegated to the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) having administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces until transferred to the Civilian Administrations were established under the Mandate.

The purpose of the encouraged immigration was for reconstituting their Jewish National Home under the lawful control of the Mandatory ---- via ---- the Allied Powers and League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You know this is not true. We discussed this at length some time ago.

Isn't ignore the root of ignorance?

(COMMENT)

First, none of the journalist actually witnessed either the strike or the gunfire. The hotel was full of all kinds of journalist in it and no one saw anything. Why? Because it was not Naval Gunfire. It was indirect artillery fire aiming at the building across the street from the hotel with HAMAS in it.

As unfortunate as it is, people die in wars. And the Palestinian who initiate the conditions for counterattacks are culpable.

The furtherance of this "murder" threat is merely to incite emotions and to attend the HAMAS Agenda. It was collateral damage and unintentional death.

Most Respectfully,
R

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

You never did prove how murdering children is resistance, And not all Jews come from Europe as monte's link showed many came from nations close at hand.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. What would you say about US troops taking their children to Iraq?

Blowing smoke. Before 1948 most settlers came from Europe. After 1948 many came from the surrounding countries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

(OFF TOPIC)
P F Tinmore, et al,

It was not a "defensive position." I do not believe I made such a claim; that under Articles 4 and 6 --- encouragement and facilitation of Jewish immigration to affect the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, was a defensive position.

I believe the claim was that it was a best course of action decision made by the Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention in 1920. The Allied Powers having accepted receivership of the territories by means of the unconditional surrender in the Mudros Armistice and the Treaty of Sevres.

You never did explain how going from Europe to Palestine to take over the country is a defensive position.

(COMMENT)

The defense of the territory, within such boundaries as was determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to which the Mandate for Palestine applied (Short Title: Palestine made by the Order in Council) was the sole concern of the Allied Powers; and not the indigenous population. The responsibilities for the defense of the territories were relegated to the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) having administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces until transferred to the Civilian Administrations were established under the Mandate.

The purpose of the encouraged immigration was for reconstituting their Jewish National Home under the lawful control of the Mandatory ---- via ---- the Allied Powers and League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that the Zionists did not go to Palestine to take over the country.

BTW, they did it too. So the facts on the ground confirm that I am correct.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

This is the trouble with news reporters and their "Eye Witness" accounts.

They saw an explosion; after that --- they go almost everything else wrong.

An eyewitness account of the attack that killed four children on Gaza beach - Diplomacy and Defense - - Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

(FROM YOU NEWS ARTICLE)

The initial reports coming from journalists on the scene attributed the explosions to gunfire from Israeli Navy boats that have been firing at targets on the coast in recent days. Beaumont who has covered many wars including Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, says that after he and colleagues began getting a clearer picture, he reached the conclusion that it was most likely an air strike. "Usually when we hear the naval gunfire we hear after the explosion also the sound of the guns, from a few kilometers out to sea. After everything settled down, I realized we didn't hear any firing out to sea."

(COMMENT)

Neither of which was correct. The "Eye Witness" saw an explosion and the aftermath. They could not even tell the direction in which the fire came from, or the source. They were guessing. It could have been a malfunctioning HAMAS rocket for all they knew.

Most Respectfully
R