digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Video: Attacked on Gaza's football fields

guardian.co.uk — 'They say they have the right to shoot at us and kill us'. In the fourth of five films from Gaza, multimedia reporter Clancy Chassay meets Samir who lost his brother and two footballing friends during Israeli rocket and shell attacks on their playing fields

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ad33lshahid, on 05/15/2008, -8/+36everyday something new. end the madness.
    • jaymzdean, on 05/15/2008, -2/+14Ironically, the Christian Zionists believe that whoever brings peace to the middle east is the anti-Christ.
      • Siegfriedson, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1Then they should move to Israel and join the Israeli Defense Force so they can server their worldly masters.
    • DCB360, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3Although this is a terrible tragedy, this happened 3 months ago, so it is incorrect to say that it is something new.

      We can all be happy to know that no other children were killed on these football fields since then. But, I do realize that there were other civilian causalities since then.
      • ad33lshahid, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4everyday some new atrocity in that area comes to my attention
  • bohemianowl, on 05/15/2008, -14/+34but if we condemn the actions of a country (Israel) we get accused of racism. what a bunch of sick bastards these zionists are.
    • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4You don't get accused of racism. You get accused of applying a double standard to Israeli. Because you choose to judge Israel by a different set of rules than every other nation in the world, you get accused of anti-Semitism.

      For an example of the double-standard, just look at your own comment about Zionists.

      Zionism means nothing more than support for the state of Israel. So you just called anyone who supports Israel a sick bastard. That hardly seems fair. I am a supporter of America, when an American missile misses its target and kills an Iraq child am I a sick bastard if I still believe in Americas right to exist and defend itself? Of course not.

      Zionists mourn the collateral deaths of Palestinian innocents just as the rest of the world does. But unlike the rest of the world, Zionists don't think that military blunders, particularly in such a complicated situation where terrorists purposely hide amongst civilians, is a reason to abandon support of the country.
  • neocognitism, on 05/15/2008, -12/+21The settlers are mentally ill worthless cult members with weapons and a license to kill. What they are doing couldn't be farther from Judaism.
  • jaymzdean, on 05/15/2008, -16/+21Zionism.
    A dangerous and powerful racial supremacist cult that makes the KKK look like amateurs.
    • Picaroon, on 05/15/2008, -10/+9Zionism is nothing compared to Islamofascism. Israelis want to exist freely. Islamic Fundamentalists want Israel destroyed.
      • neocognitism, on 05/15/2008, -9/+8No that's not true. There is no such word as Islamofascism and it has no meaning. There are extremists in the Islamic faith, just as there are extremists in the Christian (Christian Zionists) and the Jewish (Jewish Zionists) faith.
        • hadees, on 05/15/2008, -8/+12Odd coming from someone who routinely calls people ziontologists. Maybe you think there is no such word as hypocrite.
        • neocognitism, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3Ziontologist is a word that actually means the literal meaning of it's parts, and you know it, liar. A Ziontologist is a Zionist who employs the methods of Scientologists (fair game) in dealing with dissent from their agenda.

          Islamofascism cannot mean Islamic people who are fascist because that is not how it is used at all. It is nonsensical. That is, unless you wrongfully interpret fascism to mean "bad stuff" like talk radio does, but you've exhibited more intelligence than those primates in the past, so I have faith in you.

          I'm not hypocritical whatsoever, but you sure are, just by being an astroturfer. Say hi to Gilead.
        • hadees, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7I have to know how your mind works. If Ziontologist has a "literal meaning" of its parts then why doesn't Islamofacist mean Islamic Extremists who use the tactics of Fascism.

          What I find so interesting about you is the fact you never can admit you are wrong or that you routinely say contradictory statements. It seems like the scope of your beliefs are only relevant to the comment you are responding to.
        • neocognitism, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3"If Ziontologist has a "literal meaning" of its parts then why doesn't Islamofacist mean Islamic Extremists who use the tactics of Fascism."

          Oh, if that's what people meant when they said Islamofascism, then that would be true! Since what they actually mean with "fascism" here has nothing to do with fascism, as I said, then it is not!

          You have a pretty limited command of the English language, I'm beginning to suspect. Look up fascism, which somehow I suspect you've looked at before but are choosing to ignore now, astroturfer.

          If I was actually wrong, I would admit it, idiot. I'm not. You are!
        • hadees, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9Fascism is a form government where the interest of the larger group trumps the rights of the individual. An Islamic state where people are forced to follow strict religious laws fits this description. I'm not exactly sure which of your magic powers allow are allowing you to measuring intent but since I lack those mind reading abilities I can only look at the factual definitions. Unlike Ziontologist, Islamicfacist is actually backed up the definition.

          And as typical when the proverbial ***** hits the fan as it were you resort back to your common name calling and vague insults which only purpose must be to goad me into a name calling match so that I don't continue pointing out the obvious weakness of your arguments.

          As for you ever admitting your are wrong we both know that you never do that and instead rationalize any answer you already gave when faced with irrefutable evidence. Case in point is what falls in East and West Jerusalem.
        • neocognitism, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3That's not what fascism means, idiot.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

          That's not what the Republican party, talking heads, and "Greater Israel" scum like you mean when they say the term, idiot, unless they are derisively describing themselves. That's why the term doesn't make sense, because it does not mean the literal combination of it's parts, like Ziontologist (you) does. How many times do you need to hear it?

          Seriously, did you graduate high school, or are you just doing your typical complete denial of being wrong in any way.

          Oh the East/West Jerusalem thing. You mean the issue you followed me around in a conversation that didn't include you, and convinced yourself I had misspoken when I hadn't? Funny thing is, that came right after I skewered you in two different conversations that you refused to acknowledge, even though it was obvious to all involved I had nailed you. I guess that still smarts. Let's see, I would say the more insecure of us would need to continuously bring one of these up. Who's doing that? Ahhhh.

          Do please continue to embarrass yourself more by misunderstanding fascism. What will you say next?
        • lordenlil, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8The very fact that you referred hadees to a dictionary/encyclopedia to define 'Fascism' is evidence that you yourself have a very limited understanding of the concept of Fascism. The word 'Fascism' is much like the word 'Democracy', it means many different things to many different people. Instead of referring to Wikipedia, you should learn some political science. Read philosophers and political scientists like Foucalt, Hegel, Kant, Tocqueville, Marx and Derrida.

          If you choose instead to stick to the ignoramus's Wikipedia definition, Hadees is by all accounts still correct. If the term Ziontologist can be broken down into the first part as a description of beliefs, Zionist, and the second as description of approach to defending/promoting those beliefs, Scientologist Method, the same can easily be said about the term Islamofascist. The descriptive beliefs are Islam, and the defense/promotion of those beliefs are Fascism.
          The denial that promotion of autocratic control based on extreme religious beliefs forcibly imposed on the public is in fact not fascist, at least to most encyclopedias and political-scientists, is ignorant and rooted in denial.
        • neocognitism, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3Wow, I'm floored. You're defending hadees and following me around.

          You're a Ziontologist too. I though you hated them. Guess not, huh?

          "The descriptive beliefs are Islam, and the defense/promotion of those beliefs are Fascism. "

          It is? How? Because you say it is without qualification or evidence, when I provided an expansive definition of fascism that proves it isn't?

          You're acting like foorpirata now. He has an uncontrollable urge to follow me around and insinuate himself in conversations I was having with hadees, yonoz, and others, but mainly them. This behavior of his dropped off since the astroturfing CAMERAmen outing at wikipedia.

          I'd like you to state now that you have no acquaintance with anyone connected to the accounts for foopirate, hadees, and yonoz, and that you are not yourself using any other accounts here, and that you have no connection or acquaintaince with astroturfing organizations like CAMERA, AIPAC, AJC, and ADL. I want the denial on record.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -2/+8Don't flatter yourself- I'm not following you around. I checked out your account to see if you had responded to the other thread and noticed this thread. I noticed that in a recent comment you tried defending the obviously ridiculous argument that the term 'Islamofascist' has no meaning, whereas the term 'Ziontologist' has meaning. That is absurd.
          Don't take my quote out of context, thats unfair. I don't think all Muslims are Fascists, nor do I think that all Palestinians are Fascist, nor do I think all Israelis are Fascist. I do, however, believe that the term 'Islamofascist' *does* have meaning, and *does* accurately convey a certain faction of radical Muslims. Why you deny that is beyond me.
          For an on-record denial, I'll give you this: ***** you. If you were capable of carrying out the most simple reasoning processes, or even investigative work, you'd easily recognize how far removed I am from Zionism and the Israeli Occupation of post-1967 territories. Your blatant disregard for public comments I have made in the past condemning Israel, 'Ziontology', AIPAC and CAMERA, and your consequent accusation of "You're a Ziontologist too" illustrate to me that you are not looking for open-forums or rational conversation. You are being vindictive and unreasonable and perpetrating ad hominem attacks.
          That's fine, it really is. A lot of people here on Digg are just like that. Just don't prance around under the pretext of logic and reason if you have no intentions of adhering to either.
        • neocognitism, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3"I noticed that in a recent comment you tried defending the obviously ridiculous argument that the term 'Islamofascist' has no meaning, whereas the term 'Ziontologist' has meaning. That is absurd."

          Islamofascism is used in a way that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of fascism. In fact, it was coined specifically as a dysphemism to attach the negative connotations of fascism when the actual colloquial meaning of "Islamofascism" has nothing to do with fascism. It's like a group of antisemities calling a bat mitzvah a "judeonucleoholocaust." The first part points accurately to the subject, Jews, but the second points to something horrible and completely unrelated to a bat mitzvah. It's called a dysphemism, and doesn't make literal sense, which means it's nonsensical.

          Get it?

          Also, I'm waiting for that denial. Lack of adequate yea/nay response is a tacit admission in a court of law.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7So you are paranoid as well as deluded?

          Your argument is only valid if the term 'Islamofascist' has never, in the history of its use, accurately referred to a Fascist Muslim. I will spell this out with reason, though I know I am wasting my time, as your agenda is impervious to reason.

          Point 1- The term fascist is a hotly disputed term. Many different philosophers and political scientists debate as to what the *actual* meaning of Fascism is. Even after the debate is settled, and even if we choose to use the layman's definition, Fascism could probably be described as total state control, enforcement of state policies through physical and psychological means, and a public that is being forcibly governed.

          Point 2- Just as Ziontologist can be broken down into belief and policy, so too can Islamofascist.

          Point 3- Radical Muslims exist that believe in governance by means very similar, if not identical to, various understandings of Fascism. There are even Muslim extremists that fall into the layman's definition, governing through fear and intimidation.

          Point 4- As the term 'Islamist' has come to mean a practicing Muslim, and the term 'Fascist' has come to mean the belief in governance through fear and intimidation, the joining of these two terms, Islamofascist, can be used to describe a Muslim that believes in governance through means of fear and intimidation.

          In this vain, I would say that the terms 'Ziofascist' and 'Christifascist' are also acceptable terms that do, in fact, mean something. Though, we have different terms for them.
        • neocognitism, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3Yes, you're right, you've proved that if you willfully misinterpret what fascism means, it makes sense. Same with Judeonucleoholocaust.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8That's dumb. Admit you are wrong. You were taking it to far. Denying that the term 'Islamofascist' has no meaning is absurd. Learn what you believe and why you believe it- most importantly, why it makes sense.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8Denying the term 'Islamofascist' has meaning is absurd.*
        • neocognitism, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3Sigh. ANY WORDS STRUNG TOGETHER HAVE THE MEANING OF THE COMPONENT WORDS.

          Islamofascism DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. Saying "oh it's Islamists using fascism" is obviously one possible true statement, but is COMPLETELY VAGUE AND MEANINGLESS. It's double-speak, a dysphemism, sophistry. Do you not see that, you moron? Kind of like a "Jewish conspiracy." What the ***** does that even mean? Jews in a conspiracy? Well what does that mean? etc, etc.

          STOP WASTING MY TIME. And if you jump in future conversations of mine I will block you. Got it?

          Hadees, you should thank this man for assuming the mantle of being proven wrong on this issue, although it is noted you once again defend anti-Arab and anti-Islam racist and bigoted ***** concepts here on digg. Your perfect record of anti-Israel "Greater Israel" pathology is unbroken.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9Oh, so the new approach is a caps-lock attack? Very classy.

          Direct quote from your first comment: "Islamofascism cannot mean Islamic people who are fascist because that is not how it is used at all. It is nonsensical. That is, unless you wrongfully interpret fascism to mean "bad stuff" like talk radio does, blah blah blah..."

          The term 'Islamofascist' certainly applies to "terrorist" groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad, especially if you interpret the term 'Fascism' with the widely popular Hegelian interpretations of Fascism.

          Stop referring to Wikipedia and Websters for defintions of things like Fascism...Jeez, talk about ignorance. Read a book!
        • neocognitism, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3Yes, what you quoted of mine is entirely accurate and consistent with everything I have said, beginning to end. What is wanting is your ends-focused illogic.

          But now your brilliant thesis is terrorists are facists? So... does that also mean all fascists are terrorists? And by terrorist, do you mean everyone listed as a terrorist by the US State Department, or people/entities that fit the definition of terrorists? Somehow I am sure you'll opt for the former, as it fits your political goals.

          I have read a book. Just one. It's called "The Israel Lobby." You should read it, because you're an idiot who evokes Hegel like a sophomoric college student.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8Of course I have read The Israel Lobby- it's a very important book, though it has very little to do with Hegel, Kant, Alexis de Tocqueville, Antonio Gramsci, Benito Mussolini, Michel Foucalt or Jacques Derrida. Maybe you should read some of those authors as well. At least you should read them if you want to pretend you know anything about Fascism.

          "My brilliant these" is neither my own, nor particularly brilliant. It's actually quite commonsensical. And yes, you hit the nail on the head- some terrorists are fascists. Of course, it depends on which interpretation of Fascism you'd like, but I'm fairly certain everyone except Antonia Gramsci would agree that Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are fundamentally Fascist organizations.

          Stop talking out of your ass. You make it clear enough that you don't know *****- aside from *maybe* some hard science. In terms of political science you are proving yourself to be extremely ignorant.
          It humors me that you referred to Wikipedia to define Fascism and you still maintain that you know anything about it.
        • neocognitism, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3Sigh, that's not what I said. You misquote and/or misunderstand, again and again. I do enjoy train wrecks such as yourself every once and awhile, but I'm growing bored. I also don't believe you've read The Israel Lobby. You sound like an insecure college student who is in the bottom half of the class.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9I get it- you know I'm in college. Perhaps it's because I explicitly told you this many times. I don't need to defend my grades or prove anything to you, but I will say this- even if I were in the lowest tenth of my class, I'd still be happy knowing that I am intellectually honest with myself. That is a lot more than you can say for yourself.
          Heres a thought- if someone misunderstands you, and you believe yourself to be correct, why not respond with a clarification of the misunderstanding? The answer is overabundantly clear- there is nothing left for you to clarify. I have dismantled your absurd claim and successfully demonstrated the fundamental ignorance in your assertion.
          That makes me 2/2 over you. Unless of course you have some more paranoid, nonsensical claims to throw in.
        • neocognitism, on 05/21/2008, -8/+3Actually you've dismantled yourself over and over, and I am 2/2 in maintaining the veracity and accuracy of my words. You started off promising and devolved into the same abysmal idiocy I've seen over and over with Ziontologists.

          But, take heart, I have absolutely no problem with you deluding yourself to the opposite. I just hope your professors/TAs in a position of authority make you face this with a loud "D" on a paper or two, otherwise you aren't getting your money's worth.

          You never said you were in college, you only mentioned taking a class in Hebrew to another digger. It's entirely apparent you are in college, though, and you're not a very good student.
        • lordenlil, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8Ok Neocognitism. If the winner of an argument is judged based on sticking to the same incorrect opinion after clearly being disproved by means of reason, then you have won both the discussions we had. Whereas, if the winner of an argument is judged by which person more accurately demonstrated (through reason) the strengths in their argument and the weaknesses in their opponents, then I am 2/2. But again, I know and believe this without your confirmation.
          I mentioned my college, GPA, and majors in a response to one of your comments, and in another I responded in the positive to your presumption that I am in college.
        • neocognitism, on 05/21/2008, -8/+3Oh was this on reddit? I forget. You are obsessed.

          Again, if you need to tell yourself erroneously that you "won" by all means, do so. In ending I am warning you again that if you jump in a long conversation I'm having, especially if it's with a ziontologist I had pinned, I'll block you. Then you won't be able to "win" any more conversations with me. *chuckle*
        • lordenlil, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8I'll take part in whatever conversation I want to take part in. You can block me, by all means. I'll take it as a sign of victory. A sign that you are afraid to engage in debates of reason.
          And don't flatter yourself, it is not you that I am interested in- it's the topic of Israel and the middle-east.
        • neocognitism, on 05/21/2008, -8/+2OK, I'm blocking you right now. Feel free to interpret this as victory, if it makes you feel better.

          Bye!
        • lordenlil, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8To anyone still paying attention to this dialogue. Take note: this is how it works. Reason and logic will always prevail, arguments built on weak foundations of paranoia, emotion and spiteful obsession will always come crumbling down. This applies to *all* areas of life and politics.

          The world is full of people like Neocognitism. They are vocal, they know key points of their arguments, and they believe very strongly in whatever it is. These people can *rarely* reconcile their beliefs, or uphold the rationale of their beliefs. They are ethically and morally confused, often leading hypocritical lives with a plethora of contradictory beliefs and practices.

          No matter what, always know what you believe, why you believe it, and how your beliefs interact and reconcile with the world and the worlds issues. Accomplish this and you will be able to engage anyone, and defeat most.
        • txchica, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8@lordenlil, well said. I think we've all had our "discussions" with Neo, normally it ends with an insult from him, but good job keeping him on task, he's the master of the redirect and ad hominem attack.
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -12/+8Zionism means the maintenance of an apartheid state with a racial overclass and a racial underclass. It is not simply the idea to "exist freely."
        • hadees, on 05/16/2008, -7/+11I didn't know we had the Webster from the dictionary on Digg. You have to be Webster because I don't know think anyone else who would be pretentious enough to think they can define words anyway they want.
        • dinostabOMG, on 05/16/2008, -11/+7Pull your head out of your ass - that is what it means because that is the effect that it has had, and is having.
        • yonoz, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9Then I suppose Palestinian Nationalism means "the committing of acts of terrorism against civilians including women and children".
        • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9Zionism means nothing more than support of the modern state of Israel.

          A state which, incidentally, guarantees freedom and equality to all its citizens.
    • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10Zionism isn't about racial supremacy, its about survival. It was established as a safe haven for Jews (which is a religion, not a race, by the way). When the Nazis wiped out 2/3rds of the Jewish population in Europe, and the rest of the world was complacent, it became clear that if Jews weren't given a home to defend themselves, they would be wiped off the face of the Earth.

      But beyond survival based on religious affiliation, Israel shows no preference towards one religion over another. Islamic and Christians in Israel have equal rights, and all the same freedoms as the Jews, including freedom to worship how they choose.

      HOWEVER, if you listen to the Palestinians, as they chant "death to Jews!" then you can see KKK-like behavior.

      It's the ultimate irony that the Israelis are being accused of racism while the true peddlers of hatred get nothing from you but sympathy.
      • neocognitism, on 05/19/2008, -7/+4no, YOU and YOUR GROUP of "Greater Israel" evil scumbags are being accused of racism. Most Israelis disagree with you and your anything-but definition of "pro-Israel" which means perpetual war and pro-genocide, political interference, and anti-democracy. You want to destroy Israel, the only democracy in the middle east.
      • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10You don't even know your facts. Zionism was established long before the Holocaust. Many of the leading Zionist proponents absolutely abhorred the idea of Israel being born solely because of the Holocaust. Also, you assertion that "Israel shows no preference towards one religion over another" tells me that you have certainly never been there.
        Living in east Jerusalem with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends as well as visiting Hebron and other territories deep in the West Bank, has proven to me beyond the shadow of any miniscule doubt that Israeli authorities certainly exhibit preferences based on race and religion.
        • flossdaily, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3I know my facts about Zionism and Israel, thanks very much- and the fact is that Israel would never have gotten statehood had the holocaust not occurred. It took international pressure to make that happen, and an unprecedented amount of sympathy for the Jewish people.

          As far as your experience in Israel... there is something seriously lacking if your only argument is "I lived there, you're wrong."

          I just spent a semester taking a U.S./Israel comparative law course, and I've read all the court cases and Israeli laws that declare equality for all- so don't tell me that just cause your friends don't like Muslims somehow means that the don't have equal rights.

          Also, the West Bank is occupied territory, and it's populated by people who aren't Israeli citizens, so yeah- they won't be treated like Israeli citizens. It's not that hard to understand.
        • lordenlil, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7From Nordau, to Herzl, to Jabotinsky, all believed that the Jewish people deserved a state. The first, second, and third Aaliyot to Israel were all by the original Zionists. They believed in hard work, communism, secularism and the Jewish nation over the Jewish religion. In fact, when the fourth Aaliyah of Holocaust survivors arrived, there was terrible discrimination against them for being "sheep" and not fighting back- the early Zionists, the Sabras, could not understand this.
          Of course, the Holocaust is what brought international awareness to the forefront of that day, but it was by no means the method in which Zionists wanted to legally settle in Israel.
          I, too, have taken Israeli law courses. I've taken them in Israel, in Hebrew. I know all the famous cases, I wrote papers on the most famous of them. As far as "my argument"- I agree, it is lacking. I can tell you stories of being detained for hours on end, for passing checkpoints while my Christian friends are given a hard time and my Iranian friend is detained for 6 hours. I can tell you about checkpoints, roadblocks and soldiers pointing guns at Arabs, I can tell you about the constant pervasive fear permeating from abandoned streets in the old city of Hebron. I can tell you about a lot more, but thats all I can do. You should probably go check it out for yourself. I'll tell you this though- things look a lot different on the street than in court documents.
  • Liam76, on 05/15/2008, -16/+11But the video doesn't show this bombing does it?

    Everyone getting upset by this should check out youtube and pallywood. Israel doesn;t randomly fire rockets into Gaza for no reason.
    • Zecchetti, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3"pallywood" have infiltrated The Guardian UK have they?

      go back to your settlement, moron.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/15/2008, -11/+12vid or it didn't happen.
    • Carthagefield, on 05/15/2008, -6/+14Point a camera at an Israeli tank? You wouldn't dare!
      http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=48 ...
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/15/2008, -6/+9I try my best not to point anything at a tank when I am down range, much less shouldered video camera.
        • Herkimer56, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6That would seem to be completely sensible to me.
        • Carthagefield, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6Thanks, your anecdote supports my point quite beautifully.
    • Satanimator, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4You're right, this doesn't show the events in question, but do you remember this:

      http://ark2.www7.50megs.com/MohammedAldura.html
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7Yes and its all fake.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah#Co ...

        The reasons to doubt that the al-Duras, the cameramen, and hundreds of onlookers were part of a coordinated fraud are obvious. Shahaf's evidence for this conclusion, based on his videos, is essentially an accumulation of oddities and unanswered questions about the chaotic events of the day. Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead? Why is one Palestinian policeman wearing a Secret Service-style earpiece in one ear? Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if 'directing' a dramatic scene? Why does the funeral appear — based on the length of shadows — to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting? Why is there no blood on the father's shirt just after they are shot? Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, 'The boy is dead' before he had been hit? Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?"

      • urik88, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Of course that we didn't forget about it. You should watch this:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY
  • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -3/+12An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Israel doesn't kill for revenge. Israel kills to maintain national security.

      Palestinians kill for revenge. And they kill targets that had nothing to do with the original harm done to them.
  • DeviantDragon, on 05/15/2008, -11/+9Damn it, people. Palestinian rockets hit Israeli malls and Israeli rockets hit Palestinian football fields. Neither side is innocent and both sides engage in violence that becomes misdirected and affects civilians. Let's not turn a blind eye to either side's actions and pretend like one side is demonstrably more innocent.
    • DCB360, on 05/15/2008, -7/+14Do you realize that Hamas aims rockets at Israel in hopes of killing civilians, while Israel aims missiles at terrorists in hopes of killing terrorists?

      The problem is that the terrorists hide behind the civilians, so that they can claim more casualties later. Israel needs to retaliate even if it means risking the lives of their enemy's civilians.
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -13/+7Who is the source that says the IDF doesn't take aim at civilians? The IDF? Please.
        • saltinekracka20, on 05/15/2008, -5/+8You're an idiot.
        • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10Who is the source that says the IDF takes aim at civilians? Hamas? Please.
        • urik88, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6Common sense. Israel has better stuff to do than deliberately killing Palestinian civilians.
        • dinostabOMG, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1The evidence would appear to disagree. Of course you apologists have some excuse every time, such as "The IDF doesn't target civilians." Such is the excuse when that, exactly, happens.
        • urik88, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Really? In my opinion the evidence shows exactly the contrary.
          Israel. a country under constant attack, in 8 years inflicted around 4,745 deaths among the Palestinians, which 35.2% (by the B'Tselem report) of them were combatants for sure. Then we have all the people that you don't know if they were combatants.
          That would be around 1 - 2 Palestinians killed per day in average.

          Seeing how Hamas keeps shooting from populated areas, including Schools, I think that Israel is being incredibly hesitant since it's a WAR, and Israel is under constant attack.
          Please tell me, how an advanced army that deliberately targets civilians, kills only around 1 - 2 Palestinians a day?
          Yeah. It's because Israel targets terrorists, and some civilians get caught in the crossfire sometimes.
          Sure, Israel has way less casualties than the Palestinians. But that's because Israel has better weapons and better defenses. Not because the Palestinians don't want war and don't attack Israel.
      • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -7/+1t
    • saltinekracka20, on 05/15/2008, -7/+10Israeli attacks are retaliatory. That's the difference, but you won't hear about that on Digg. The "Zionists" are evil blood-thirsty villans.
      • yellowcakewalk, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1Retaliatory? Did the Palestinians rise up in a great army and attack the shtetls of Eastern Europe? The "Zionists" arrived in Palestine and got down to work on ethnic cleansing. You DO know about "Plan Gimel" don't you?
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1 Maybe if you leave the land that Israel is illegally on? Don't know about you but it seems to me a good analogy would be two guys get into a fight on the street. Guy A, beats guy B.

        Guy A then follows Guy B home and occupies his main floor. Clearly GUY B doesn't like this and a few skirmishes break out in the living room and kitchen as Guy B tries to get his home back. Guy A doesn't like getting attacked so he retaliates and takes over the guys basement as well.

        Now I am sure Guy A has his reasons, and Guy B has his. Clearly both are wrong for fighting - but only one is illegally occupying land..so while everyone can argue about who hit first, who has to stop first - the only real point is that there is a guy illegally occupying a home, merely because he is stronger.

        That is why we have laws, to protect the weak from the ignorant strong. That is why Israel is perceived as being wrong, despite Palestinians sharing the blame. Israel is strong and occupying the house.
  • DCB360, on 05/15/2008, -10/+11If you see two men playing with a large pipe in an open field in a warzone area after a missile was launched from it, then you might presume them to be terrorists.

    For those that were wondering, this is what a hookah looks like. This is a homemade version. http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/5630/ikookahmz3 ...
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -5/+6Yeah, everything they do is justified. Same old story.
    • Carthagefield, on 05/15/2008, -6/+5The incident you refer to is a separate issue to the main incident in question. The boys who were fired upon by an Israeli tank while playing a game of football, killing two and maiming another, were not running around with a frickin' "hookah", or anything else that might be perceived to be an anti-tank weapon.
      • DCB360, on 05/17/2008, -4/+4Did you even watch the video or did you just blindly support the Palestinian side?

        The victim's brother clearly stated that he was smoking a water pipe/hookah in the field when he died. It was also mentioned when the incident was first reported by major media sources.
        • Carthagefield, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Did you even read my post, or did you have your Likud shades on again? Samir talks about two separate incidents. You made a point about the first, which does not explain the incident which this digg story focusses on. Read title: "Attacked on Gaza's football fields", reffering to the boys who were shelled by a tank while playing football, not the guys (one of which was Samir's brother Mohammed) who were "sitting around, smoking a water pipe" before an Israeli attack helicopter fired a rocket on them.

          "The victim's brother clearly stated that he was smoking a water pipe/hookah in the field when he died." Wrong. Samir never said where they were, only that Israel's excuse for needlessly killing his brother was that they "couldn't see what they were up to".
  • saltinekracka20, on 05/15/2008, -10/+9Yes, this is much more terrible than shooting a rocket into a mall. I swear, one pro-Israeli article can't make it to the front page without someone trying to negate it with an anti-Israeli article--same goes for Hilary (and soon to be McCain). Digg: The fair and balanced news source.
    • neocognitism, on 05/15/2008, -10/+8Being anti-Palestinian does not equal being pro-Israel, and vice versa.

      Further, what you define as pro-Israel, is anything but. The majority of Israelis disagree with your Likudnik policies, and you are anti-Israel and antisemitic to falsely speak in their stead.

      18 people have been killed since 2000 by all the rockets. The IOF has killed more Palestinian civilians in one day.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2Yes, Kracka, the truth really does have an anti-zionist bias. Why is that?
  • fuzzmeister, on 05/15/2008, -10/+9Far too many people here are falling into the logical fallacy of assuming that one side (namely, the Palestinians) are the "victims", because Israel is fighting them (or at least the terrorists among them). The truth is, Palestinians are attacking Israel as well. There is no innocent side in this battle.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5The fallacy is lumping everyone into two camps.
    • Kizilbash, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7Only one side is living under occupation though.
    • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4The plain facts are these:

      Israel is more powerful and wants peace and security.

      Palestinians are weaker and want the destruction of Israel.


      There is only one side perpetuating the violence here, and its the side that can't win. I'm sick of the cycle of violence myth. If Israel wanted war and violence the Palestinians would have been exterminated decades ago.

      Palestinians were victims of land-disenfranchisement by the BRITISH, who gave their home away. But Israel has been the victim of Palestinian aggression ever since.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1That is crap. What you are saying, is Israelis are all good and the Palestinians are all bad. That is BS and at first blush you can see how no group of people can be labeled like that. But it serves to rally the weak minded.

        Israel is in violations of how many UN resolutions? How many did it take for Saddam to be targeted? How many are Iran in violation of?

        Sorry, but it has become obvious to all that while both sides share blame in this; only one side is holding all the important cards. Thanks to an exceptionally good and aggressive lobby throughout Europe and N.A.
  • bigp3rm, on 05/15/2008, -6/+12Only 75 digs? I guess it's only important when Israelis are senselessly murdered or maimed. Digg users claim to be well informed people above the sheepel who watch western media outlets. It shows me that most digg users are a bunch of sheepel.

    Or maybe they would just like a top 10 list of why it's ok to rail Palestinians?
  • freedomwv, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9This is sad. Those are kids! I know this kind of stuff happens everyday in Gaza but each time I see a report about it I still get this sick feeling in my gut. War is hell. Nothing ever good comes out of war. War brings only brings death and hate.
  • urik88, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Awful...
    So much lives are shattered in war in both sides.
    Hamas seriously should stop firing from populated places. They are only making the war errors fall on their very own civilians.
  • flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6Collateral damage sucks.

    Lets pressure the Palestinians to finally accept that Israel always going to be a country, then maybe they'll accept a land for peace deal like all the other Arabs in the area did?
    • yellowcakewalk, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4Maybe the Israelis will live up to their promise to adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 242 and get back behind the 1967 borders. The world community has been very generous to the Israelis, allowing them to set up a country on stolen Palestinian land. But is it EVER enough for the rapacious Israelis?
    • slotimus, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2Maybe we should accept the fact that Israel stole the land by using the holocaust as a patsy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.