Israel Allows Security Forces To Shoot At Palestinian Protestors(Video)

I don't know how some people can stand up for these guys. Crimes against humanity, is an everyday occurrence in Israel. Their treatment of Palestinians is in-humane. makes me sick to my stomach. Here's a video from Russia Today.







youtu.be...

Thank you TheSnowman. Couldn't have done it without you.

So...only Israel is guilty of this kind of thing, eh?

All of NATO are butchers...just not in their own backyard.

It's disgusting that we can support a country who shoots at unarmed protesters. If it happened in the US, it would be a huuuuge deal. When it happens in Israel, it's ok? Oh well, they're still the good guys since they're not evil muslims.

The worst part is that it's the USA's fault Israel is allowed to do this. If Israel wasn't 100% sure that we will support them and let them continue doing whatever the hell they want, this crap wouldn't happen. Without all of our money and weapons, Israel would be crushed for committing these kinds of atrocities.

Originally posted by TheSnowman
It's disgusting that we can support a country who shoots at unarmed protesters. If it happened in the US, it would be a huuuuge deal. When it happens in Israel, it's ok? Oh well, they're still the good guys since they're not evil muslims.

The worst part is that it's the USA's fault Israel is allowed to do this. If Israel wasn't 100% sure that we will support them and let them continue doing whatever the hell they want, this crap wouldn't happen. Without all of our money and weapons, Israel would be crushed for committing these kinds of atrocities.

Thank you again. Agree with everything you said. imagine if this was Iran? it would be all over the news, propped up as war propaganda, and conservatives would be screaming for us to go into Iran.

Originally posted by TheSnowman
It's disgusting that we can support a country who shoots at unarmed protesters. If it happened in the US, it would be a huuuuge deal. When it happens in Israel, it's ok? Oh well, they're still the good guys since they're not evil muslims.

The worst part is that it's the USA's fault Israel is allowed to do this. If Israel wasn't 100% sure that we will support them and let them continue doing whatever the hell they want, this crap wouldn't happen. Without all of our money and weapons, Israel would be crushed for committing these kinds of atrocities.

China has shot at unarmed civilians, France has shot at unarmed civilians, Germany has shot at unarmed civilians Africa... South and parts dark and strange have shot at unarmed civilians...With OUR guns...makes you feel warm and fuzzy dont it...the worst part is WE the civilians are lumped in with that lot of TPTB just because we are part of an "International Police Force" BAH I say. We have fired on unarmed civilians several times in our history... still governed by the same Jackasses..capitalized because its a title.

All armed conflict is sick and has its civilian casualties, in any conflict it's the populace not the opposing force you have to suppress.

I can shoot you or give you candy...now where are the terrorists that want your candy?

Israel is the USA's little puppets, YES IM AMERICAN

Israel is the only country in the middle east that are our allies, probably our number 1.

We gave them everything we had showed them the way to the dark side, and know using there american weapons they oppose those who dont believe what we, oops i ment they do... They are slaugherting innocents and putting there nose in places just like us... yet we say every middle eastern countries leaders should leave, but israeals... Damn shame

reply to post by MysticPearl


I like how you manipulated the title to make it sound like Israeli security forces were shooting at protesters. What they actually say is security forces have been given authorization to shoot at protestors during the UN vote, and only in a defensive manner.

Do you really think the Palestinian protests are going to be peaceful? With Hamas and other prominents in the Arab world calling for mass demonstrations, especially coming from those groups, it will be anything but peaceful.

Way to manipuate though You are giving Presstv a run for its money.

By the way when "protesters" cross from peaceful to attacking people and property, they are no longer protesters. Another distinction people seem to not understand.

reply to post by lyrc07


So Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Quatar, Jordan arent allies of the US?

You should call the State Department and DoD to let them know, since they are of a different mindset.

reply to post by MysticPearl


It must be kind of hard to believe that Israel gave authorization to defend themselves and their country.
When the Palestinians shoot at the Israelis do you think the Israelis might want to shoot back?
When the Palestinians send someone into a crowd with a bomb straped to his chest to kill as many Israelis as they can, do you think the Israelis might get ticked.
Or what about when your Palestinians launch a few rockets, to kill even more Israelis, do you think it might be ok to fight back.
Maybe you could contact them and them if they are fired upon they do not have your authorization to fire back.
If you receive a response back from them maybe you could post that.
That might be something worth reading.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Its not the DoD's mindset that is off...

Im talking about allies that have Power, Isreal is ranked 7-10 Top World Military
the next one on ur list is Saudi Arabia around the 25th... The others, Kuwait and Jordan etc... Not in the TOP50
www.globalfirepower.com...


Im talking about Economic Power, Isreal is around 50-65 Top gross Entities in the World pulling in around $100,000,000
No one on your list is near Top 100....
www.corporations.org...

You may feel safer thinking it matters Kuwait Jordan Saudi Arabia are our Allies, What can they do for us????? besides giving us a discount on there oil!!!!!

reply to post by lyrc07


Well influence among their Arab neighbors come to mind. Just because the US has poor relations with some ME countries doesnt mean Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi etc do. They have represented US interest in those countries where the Us has absolutely no sway.

To set a country aside based on the argument what can they give / do for us is rather short sighted.

As far as the size and technological advancement of the Israel military, its understandable if you look at history. When you are invaded / attacked numerous times by more than one enemy, you develop a sense of preservation by always being prepared.

reply to post by Xcathdra


To believe Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and ISREAL have possitive influence on neighboring countries is asinine... The only thing The Entire middle east wants is freedom.... Yet we use our allies as bases to wage war on the middle east without reson!!!! of the 19 hijackers 10 were from Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!!!! did we go to war with them???? no but we will use them to launch attacks against innocent civilans... Yes Iraqi'a and Afghans are not the bad guys, would you pick up a weapon and fight to the death demanding the impossing force to withdrawl if The US were Invaded for something only 1 or 2 people were part of??? That would make you a terroist by the way

Main thing is they are all including Isreal in the USA's pocket, Not every politiation... but it only takes a 51%Evil to Conquer 49%Good

Stay peaceful and you wont get shot. Simple really. If our government took that line during the "riots", then it would have been over in 5 minutes.

Originally posted by lyrc07
To believe Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and ISREAL have possitive influence on neighboring countries is asinine...

Not really... Unless you are stating that Yemen, Syria and Iran are stablizing influences, in which case, that would be assinine.

Originally posted by lyrc07
The only thing The Entire middle east wants is freedom.... Yet we use our allies as bases to wage war on the middle east without reson!!!!

uhm ok

Originally posted by lyrc07
....of the 19 hijackers 10 were from Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!!!! did we go to war with them???? no but we will use them to launch attacks against innocent civilans...

Failed logic - Did the US go to war with itself when Timothy Mcveigh blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma?
So when Al Queida killed over 3k people on 9/11, based on your logic, were NOT innocent civilians?

Afghanistan - attacked because they would not turn over Bin Laden directly to the US.
Iraq - Was a matter of time, and according to wikileaks WMD's were found in violation of UN resolutions. People tend to ignore this little bugget of fact because it undermines their argument that thewar with Iraq was baseless, when in reality it was not.

Originally posted by lyrc07
Yes Iraqi'a and Afghans are not the bad guys, would you pick up a weapon and fight to the death demanding the impossing force to withdrawl if The US were Invaded for something only 1 or 2 people were part of??? That would make you a terroist by the way

Actually yes, they were bad guys. If you dont understand why, then you really should learn your history and open your eyes. As far as what I would or would not do depends on the situation. In this case the US was attacked, and I support our actions to defend against whomever decides to roll the dice.

Originally posted by lyrc07
Main thing is they are all including Isreal in the USA's pocket, Not every politiation... but it only takes a 51%Evil to Conquer 49%Good

And Hezbollah and Hamas are in the pockets of Iran, who is in the pockets of the Russian.

Your point?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by lyrc07
....of the 19 hijackers 10 were from Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!!!! did we go to war with them???? no but we will use them to launch attacks against innocent civilans...

Failed logic - Did the US go to war with itself when Timothy Mcveigh blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma?
So when Al Queida killed over 3k people on 9/11, based on your logic, were NOT innocent civilians?

Sir I think you have failed at applying logic here. Timothy Mcveigh attacked his own country, while Saudis attacked our country. That's a false analogy, unless you believe Saudi Arabia is part of the US.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Afghanistan - attacked because they would not turn over Bin Laden directly to the US.

So you're saying that we attacked Afghanistan because of 1 guy, while at least 10 were from Saudi Arabia. Besides, what's so special about OBL? You honestly think he's some brilliant terrorist mastermind? Is it that hard to come up with "hijack planes and crash them into tall buildings"? That is if you believe that's actually what happened... Besides, applying that logic, we should be out of Afghanistan and blowing Pakistan to bits right now.

Originally posted by XcathdraActually yes, they were bad guys. If you dont understand why, then you really should learn your history and open your eyes. As far as what I would or would not do depends on the situation. In this case the US was attacked, and I support our actions to defend against whomever decides to roll the dice.

Yes, but ignoring the part of history where we gave the Afghanis all their weapons to fight Russia for us. Who was the US attacked by? Not Afghanistan. Again, if you're an OSer, than you would still realize it was only a few people in Afghanistan, not the whole country. If 19 Americans blew up the Eiffel tower, and France+ the UN invaded the USA, we're still the bad guys.

Originally posted by TheSnowman
Sir I think you have failed at applying logic here. Timothy Mcveigh attacked his own country, while Saudis attacked our country. That's a false analogy, unless you believe Saudi Arabia is part of the US.

Actually what I am pointing out is how a citizen can perform an action that is inconsistent with government operations. Just because 19 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia does not mean Saudi Arabia as a country attacked us. If we use that logic, then we can also state all males attacked the US, all muslims attacked, etc etc.

To blame Saudi Arabia for the actions of terrorists would require the US to blame the US for actions done by Timothy McVeigh.

Originally posted by TheSnowman
So you're saying that we attacked Afghanistan because of 1 guy, while at least 10 were from Saudi Arabia. Besides, what's so special about OBL? You honestly think he's some brilliant terrorist mastermind? Is it that hard to come up with "hijack planes and crash them into tall buildings"? That is if you believe that's actually what happened... Besides, applying that logic, we should be out of Afghanistan and blowing Pakistan to bits right now.

What I am saing is when the Taliban wanted to play games on surrendering bin Laden, they made their own bed. Yes the Taliban said they would turn him over. What people ignore is he would not be turned over to the US and the US would not be allowed to prosecute under US law. We would be at the mercy of a 3rd party that has no legal basis under US law to prosecute the governments case.

As for the rest of your info, its not exactly on topic, so not sure what you want me to say to it.

Originally posted by TheSnowman
Yes, but ignoring the part of history where we gave the Afghanis all their weapons to fight Russia for us. Who was the US attacked by? Not Afghanistan. Again, if you're an OSer, than you would still realize it was only a few people in Afghanistan, not the whole country. If 19 Americans blew up the Eiffel tower, and France+ the UN invaded the USA, we're still the bad guys.

When the goverment refuses to turn a person over for being the mastermind of over 3k people of all different countries, religious backgrounds etc, then they made the decision to stand with Bin Laden.

The attack was an act of war by AlQueida. If the attack came from say Canada, it would still be an act of war by the terrorists, and if Canada refused to surrender them, then in my opinion they are just as guilty as the ones who pulled it off.

What you and others are missing is if US citizens (and NOT the Us government) performed an action, they would be turned over to the appropriate country to face their legal system, and we have done this in the past.

You guys are confusing terrorists acting on their own and what is government sanctioned. You guys are also ignoring cooperation and refusal to cooperate.

there are differences.

As far as history goes yes we supplied arms to the Muhajadeen to fight the Soviets. At the time, its what happens when 2 super powers square off against each other - war by proxy. What people, again, ignore in this part is Afghanistan was not the total objective. Once they were done with affghanistan, the Soviet Union had intentions of pushing South in part of Pakistan to secure a warm water port near the Middle East for strategic reasons.

Once the soviets wityhdrew from Afghanistan, we stopped aiding the Muhajadeen, which torqued bin ladden off because he wanted us to support his bid to gain control of the country. When the Us refused, he soured on the Us, and here we are.