IDF murders children playing on beach

[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.

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

There was no country to take over, and no, they went to establish a Jewish homeland for themselves as promised by the British.

Nothing was taken over when Israel was established. Israel declared independence the same way the 'Palestinians' did in 1988.

 

[toastman]

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

You have ZERO proof that the children were the intended target. Why would Israel target kids on a beach anyway ? How does it help them ? It doesn't. In fact, all it does is get more support for the Palestinians.

Civilian die in wars all the time. But when Israel is involved, it's somehow 'murder'

Prove it wasn't an errant shell or human error.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It is easy to tell if it is a Hamas rocket.

They do not need to speculate. Just look at the evidence.

 

[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?

There was no country to take over, and no, they went to establish a Jewish homeland for themselves as promised by the British.

Nothing was taken over when Israel was established. Israel declared independence the same way the 'Palestinians' did in 1988.

Are you saying that the Zionists did not run the Palestinians out of their homes at the point of a gun?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not to mention the fact that "murder" is a word with actual meaning. An actual definition. The OP evidently can't grasp that fact.

Not surprising.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "facts on the ground" reflect the escalating discord and developed differences that evolved over time. Not the original intent of either the immigrants or the Allied Powers. You cannot evaluate the conditions that exist today and equate them to the intended purpose of nearly a century ago.

(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.

(COMMENT)

Clearly there were Jewish Immigrants that have greater expectations than they experienced. It doesn't mean that they entirety of the immigrants intended to supplant the indigenous population. What has evolved through today is a result of continuos conflict between the two cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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

You have ZERO proof that the children were the intended target. Why would Israel target kids on a beach anyway ? How does it help them ? It doesn't. In fact, all it does is get more support for the Palestinians.

Civilian die in wars all the time. But when Israel is involved, it's somehow 'murder'

Prove it wasn't an errant shell or human error.

Heres proof it wasn't an errant shell or human error they took aim and fired, twice

Describing the moment of the attack the Iisraeli military continues: “On 16 July, aerial surveillance identified a number of figures entering the compound at a running pace.

“These figures entered a shed adjoining the container which had been attacked the day prior. Against the backdrop of the aforementioned intelligence assessment, these were believed to be militants from Hamas’s Naval Forces, who had arrived at the compound in order to prepare to execute the aforementioned military activity against the IDF. It should be stressed that the figures were not identified at any point during the incident, as children.”

“In light of the above, 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

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "facts on the ground" reflect the escalating discord and developed differences that evolved over time. Not the original intent of either the immigrants or the Allied Powers. You cannot evaluate the conditions that exist today and equate them to the intended purpose of nearly a century ago.

(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.

(COMMENT)

Clearly there were Jewish Immigrants that have greater expectations than they experienced. It doesn't mean that they entirety of the immigrants intended to supplant the indigenous population. What has evolved through today is a result of continuos conflict between the two cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, there was the Zionist leadership and the rest were just cannon fodder for their project. You can't blame the Jews in general as they were just sucked into the scam.

 

[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.

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.

So the children being terrorists in Palestine are the responsibility of their parents, then they are not doing a very good job. What do you have to say about the Palestinians taking their children into a war zone.


Why don't you read monte's link that shows they came from the surrounding areas as well as Europe. Just as most arab muslims came from Syria and Egypt after 1923

 

[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.

So the children being terrorists in Palestine are the responsibility of their parents, then they are not doing a very good job. What do you have to say about the Palestinians taking their children into a war zone.


Why don't you read monte's link that shows they came from the surrounding areas as well as Europe. Just as most arab muslims came from Syria and Egypt after 1923

The Palestinians do not take their children to a war zone. Israel takes its war zone to them.

 

[Phoenall]

(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.

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923, which they had every right to do. The facts on the ground show that the arab muslims received the lions share of Palestine that they had no rights or links to, after all they did come from Mecca in Saudi

 

[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.

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923, which they had every right to do. The facts on the ground show that the arab muslims received the lions share of Palestine that they had no rights or links to, after all they did come from Mecca in Saudi

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923...​

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "facts on the ground" reflect the escalating discord and developed differences that evolved over time. Not the original intent of either the immigrants or the Allied Powers. You cannot evaluate the conditions that exist today and equate them to the intended purpose of nearly a century ago.

(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.

(COMMENT)

Clearly there were Jewish Immigrants that have greater expectations than they experienced. It doesn't mean that they entirety of the immigrants intended to supplant the indigenous population. What has evolved through today is a result of continuos conflict between the two cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, there was the Zionist leadership and the rest were just cannon fodder for their project. You can't blame the Jews in general as they were just sucked into the scam.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

(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.

So the children being terrorists in Palestine are the responsibility of their parents, then they are not doing a very good job. What do you have to say about the Palestinians taking their children into a war zone.


Why don't you read monte's link that shows they came from the surrounding areas as well as Europe. Just as most arab muslims came from Syria and Egypt after 1923

The Palestinians do not take their children to a war zone. Israel takes its war zone to them.

Isreal respond to attacks from gaza so gaza becomes a war zone of their own making. So the Palestinians are the ones creating the war zone and the Palestinians take their children into the mouth of hell

 

[Phoenall]

(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.

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923, which they had every right to do. The facts on the ground show that the arab muslims received the lions share of Palestine that they had no rights or links to, after all they did come from Mecca in Saudi

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923...​

Link?

Mandate of Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

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

It is easy to tell if it is a Hamas rocket.

They do not need to speculate. Just look at the evidence.

Yes lets

All the results of hamas rockets..............................

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

(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?

There was no country to take over, and no, they went to establish a Jewish homeland for themselves as promised by the British.

Nothing was taken over when Israel was established. Israel declared independence the same way the 'Palestinians' did in 1988.

Are you saying that the Zionists did not run the Palestinians out of their homes at the point of a gun?

YES as they had no homes other than tents

 

[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.

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923, which they had every right to do. The facts on the ground show that the arab muslims received the lions share of Palestine that they had no rights or links to, after all they did come from Mecca in Saudi

Yes we are as the LoN had granted them the land in 1923...​

Link?

Mandate of Palestine

Indeed, you need to read it not just listen to what the liars tell you.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

(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.

So the children being terrorists in Palestine are the responsibility of their parents, then they are not doing a very good job. What do you have to say about the Palestinians taking their children into a war zone.


Why don't you read monte's link that shows they came from the surrounding areas as well as Europe. Just as most arab muslims came from Syria and Egypt after 1923

The Palestinians do not take their children to a war zone. Israel takes its war zone to them.

How can you post such a lie? Hamas constantly turns Gaza into a war zone by picking a fight with Israel. Palestinians lets their kids go to the beach during a war.
I knew you were brainwashed by Palestinian propaganda, but I didn't think it was this bad.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

(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?

There was no country to take over, and no, they went to establish a Jewish homeland for themselves as promised by the British.

Nothing was taken over when Israel was established. Israel declared independence the same way the 'Palestinians' did in 1988.

Are you saying that the Zionists did not run the Palestinians out of their homes at the point of a gun?

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

It is easy to tell if it is a Hamas rocket.

They do not need to speculate. Just look at the evidence.

That's a pavement. It would look a whole lot different on a beach.