+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The IDF must come clean about the Hebron shooting

Why is the Israeli army refusing to release its footage from the shooting of 18-year-old Hadeel al-Hashlamon? 

By Noam Rotem

Bystander Fawaz Abu Aisheh attempts to translate the soldiers’ commands for Hashlamon, and convinces her to step back behind the metal barrier. (Photo courtesy of Youth Against Settlements)

Bystander Fawaz Abu Aisheh attempts to translate the soldiers’ commands for Hashlamon, and convinces her to step back behind the metal barrier. (Photo courtesy of Youth Against Settlements)

Israeli soldiers shot to death Hadeel al-Hashlamon, 18, in Hebron last week while she was apparently on her way to school. Found inside the black bag she was carrying were notebooks, a blue Pilot pen, a brown pencil case, a cellular phone, and other things girls of her age take to school.

The IDF Spokesperson says that the metal detector at the urban checkpoint beeped when she passed through it, and that she ignored orders to stop from the soldiers, who the shot her. It was then discovered that she had a knife, and when she still didn’t stop they shot her some more.

Witnesses told various reporters that Hashlamon simply didn’t understand the orders being shouted at her — she didn’t speak Hebrew. The first shot was a warning shot at the ground, the second shot hit her left leg and dropped her to the ground, and a third shot immediately after that hit her in the right leg. Two eye witnesses say that at that point the soldier who fired the first shots approached her, crossed the metal barrier that was separating them, stood over her, and shot her again, in the stomach, and then in the chest.

One of the witnesses, Fawaz Abu Aisheh, was very close to Hashlamon while she was still standing inside the checkpoint. He was also photographed speaking with her by an activist from “Youth Against Settlements.” Shortly after the shooting he gave his testimony to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, in which he stated that when Hashlamon fell to the ground, after the first shot, her hand — which had been hidden until that point — was exposed and in it was a knife.

Abu Aisheh changed his story in his interview with The Guardian, forgetting to mention the knife. He remembered once again when he gave his testimony to Amnesty International, even noting the color of the handle — brown. That, despite the fact that in the photo of the knife distributed by the IDF, the knife’s handle is yellow. Another witness who was nearby, who also gave his account of the events to various organizations and international media, didn’t mention seeing the knife in any of his versions.

Hashlamon was left lying on the ground for a number of minutes after she was shot. Some versions say 30 minutes, others between 10 and 20 minutes. Some witnesses say that a soldier checked her pulse and then sat waiting for an ambulance — which took her first to the adjacent settlement of Kiryat Arba, where there is no ICU, and only later took her to a larger hospital in Jerusalem. According to her father, a physician at a hospital in Hebron who saw his daughter’s medical report, she died of blood loss and multi-system failure as a result of being shot in her right knee, left foot and a number of times in her torso.

Two days after the shooting The Jerusalem Post published an article on its website under a staff byline and contributor credit to Yaakov Lapin, claiming that the Shin Bet said Hashlamon was a known terrorist, and that Israeli authorities considered her a “potential threat.” According to the article, the Shin Bet also claimed that Hashlamon broke up with her boyfriend the day before the shooting, apparently telling him that they would never see each other again. The article was taken offline shortly after being published.

Where’s the video?

Was the shooting an act of self defense by the soldiers wearing ballistic vests in the checkpoint, standing behind a steel barrier separating them and the young woman, as claimed by the IDF Spokesperson? Or was it an “extrajudicial execution,” as Amnesty claimed, and which B’Tselem said in more cautious terms. It won’t be difficult to find the answer. It would actually be very easy.

The IDF has video footage of the entire event, showing the entire sequence of events. To this day, five days since the shooting, the army has chosen not to release that video, a choice that raises questions about its motivations. Is the army covering up yet another for a soldier who sentenced a civilian to death in the West Bank. Did the young woman threaten to attack the armed soldiers to the point that they felt a threat to their lives and that they had no choice but to shoot her? Did Hashlamon pull out and wave a knife at the soldiers? Could she have actually reached soldiers standing on the other side of the barrier separating them? And after the first shot, was there a justification for shooting the 18 year old in her stomach and chest, while she was lying unresponsive on the ground?

All of the evidence is available, all of the testimonies have been recorded. The military prosecutor must put on trial the soldier who cut short Hadeel al-Hashlamon’s life, or alternatively, release the video showing that it was indeed self defense.

The IDF Spokesperson had no response when asked why video of the event hasn’t been published yet and whether it intends to do so.

Israeli soldiers, their commanders and the Shin Bet agents directing them, all know they won’t be punished if they kill civilians who don’t pose a threat. The Military Police is a sad joke riddled by unprofessionalism and a lack of motivation. The military prosecution exists only to provide reasons for not putting soldiers on trial, even when innocent people are killed.

Israeli soldiers have killed more than 25 Palestinians in the West Bank so far in 2015, a number of which raised serious questions about the soldiers’ judgement. Nevertheless, not a single soldier who killed a Palestinian was put on trial. That is the message the IDF sends to its soldiers, and the soldiers who killed Hashlamon came to the checkpoint last week having fully internalized that message.

It is too late for Hadeel al-Hashlamon but the message must be changed. The IDF cannot be allowed to investigate itself because it always finds itself innocent. The shooters must be put on trial, and an independent — non military — body must decide whether the shooting was justified. Until then, there will be no justice.

Noam Rotem is an Israeli activist, high-tech executive and author of the blog o139.org, subtitled “Godwin doesn’t live here any more.” This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call, where he is a blogger. Read it here.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. BigCat

      1. “Shortly after the shooting he gave his testimony to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, in which he stated that when Hashlamon fell to the ground, after the first shot, her hand — which had been hidden until that point — was exposed and in it was a knife.”

      2. “Abu Aisheh CHANGED his story in his interview with The Guardian, forgetting to mention the knife.”

      There you have it. The Arabs got to Abu Aisheh. They need to present facts that fits their propaganda against Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    2. BigCat

      Two days after the shooting The Jerusalem Post published an article on its website (…), claiming that the Shin Bet said Hashlamon was a known terrorist, and that Israeli authorities considered her a “potential threat.” According to the article, the Shin Bet also claimed that Hashlamon broke up with her boyfriend the day before the shooting, apparently telling him that they would never see each other again.”

      Wow, Hadil Hashlamoun had a “boyfriend”! It is a taboo for Muslim-Arabs females, teenage-girls to have “boyfriends”. That is a grave, deadly dishonor of the woman involved and her family in the Arab-Muslim world. Methinks the “boyfriend” knocked-up that chic – Hashlamoun – and devastated her- and her family’s honor, brought deadly shame on them and turned them into the out-casts and the ‘unwanteds’ of the Arab society. According to the Muslim-Arab practice in Israel, the only way to cleansing the family, remove the shame and restore the destroyed family-honor is to engage in terrorist suicide missions, kill as many Jews as possible and die in the process! Chic got herself “a boyfriend” and committed “haram”, and ones who pay the price with the limbs and lives are innocent Israelis, who are use as sacrificial the lamb.

      That dead chic – Hashlamoun – was on a kamikaze mission.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        “Wow, Hadil Hashlamoun had a “boyfriend”!”

        No, actually, because a day later the story was pulled.

        Apparently someone at the JP finally got around to doing his due-diligence, and found out that he had been sold a pack of lies.

        Reply to Comment
        • BigCat

          You aren’t very clever, are you?

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Significantly more so than you, Big Cat.

            Mind you, that’s not particularly difficult….

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Riiiight. And we know that the story was pulled not because of anything else, but rather the simplistic conjectures in your mind, donkey-head? What a fool!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            At least one-up on you, BigCat, since you weren’t even aware that the story had been pulled.

            QED: Way smarter than you.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            There ya go again with another conclusion based on your foolish conjecture – exposing what a dunce you are.

            Btw,

            when you are told that “you are not very clever” and you respond: “more significantly so than you”, you are not just agreeing that you are not very clever, but, beyond that, also a nitwit!

            But of course, you aren’t clever enough to realize that, donkey-head!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, RIght

            Now would seem to be a very good time to point out a fundamental difference in the approach taken by myself versus the approach taken by both Gustav and BigCat.

            The difference is a very glaring one i.e. both BigCat and Gustav have no evidence to back up their claim that the events took place exactly as the IDF soldiers (who, remember, did the killing) claimed.

            All they have is an insistence that such exculpatory evidence *must* exist somewhere, but for reasons unknown to them the IDF has not seen fit to release it.

            But the existence of that exculpatory evidence is something for which they have no doubt i.e. both of them insist that such evidence *must* exist because… um… err.. it’s jus’ gotta’, dunnit?

            Now, don’t get me wrong: an unshakeable belief in the existence of something you’ve never seen (i.e. “faith”) is a great basis for a religion.

            But, so sorry, it doesn’t have much of a place in a forensic investigation into a fatal shooting.

            Now, by way of very marked contrast, my interpretation (in BigCat-Talk my “conjecture”) is based entirely upon what can be seen in the available evidence i.e. by constant reference to the photos that we can all see, and the video that is available to all.

            So if there is to be any weighing up of the credibility of my “conjecture” (which, remember, references the available evidence) versus that of either Gustav and/or BigCat (which is based on their “faith” in the existence of as-yet-unseen evidence) then, indisputably, I will win that contest by a margin of, oh, somewhere around infinity-to-nothing.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            What exactly are you ranting about, donkey-head? Here is a significant part of the EVIDENCE:

            “One of the witnesses, Fawaz Abu Aisheh, was very close to Hashlamon while she was still standing inside the checkpoint. He was also photographed speaking with her by an activist from “Youth Against Settlements. Shortly after the shooting he gave his testimony to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, in which he stated that when Hashlamon fell to the ground, after the first shot, her hand — which had been hidden until that point — was exposed and in it was a knife.”

            Woof! Now, THAT – is EVIDENCE!

            Is that too difficult for get thru your rock-hard donkey-skull?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BigCat might want to go here:
            http://sanaud-voltaremos.blogspot.com.br/p/brazil-26th-september-2015.html?m=1

            No less than 23 pictures taken by a man who was there, and every single one of those photos contradict the nonsense that you have been pedalling here.

            Those photos can’t be handwaved away as Pallywood – the photographer is a Brazilian.

            And, in case you don’t have the courage to follow that link, here is the money-shot: “I would like to emphasize that the victim has never tried to attack any Israeli soldiers, she has never tried to raise a knife and she has never gotten close to any soldiers since she has crossed the Checkpoint 56 to when she was shot many times by the Israeli soldiers and fell down unconscious on the ground. Before, during and after the incident I have not seen any knife with the woman or around her on the ground.”

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            With each comment you post you show that you indeed are the ultimate, desperate and silly donkey-head! Now you are sending us a link with pictures that were not only taken from a long range (by someone claiming to be an “eyewitness”?!) and contains commentaries that do not flow from the pictures themselves?! What kind of an idiot are you? Your link claims e.g. “At 8:01 am the soldiers dragged the woman’s body under the metal barrier and pulled her to the other side of the metal barrier, where the Israeli soldiers were standing during all the incident and where they shot her from. In the same minute the victim came back to conscious and moved slowly her head. Immediately the Israeli soldiers pointed the guns at her, but she fell unconscious again. (Picture 19 – 8:01 am)”. But on the other thread YOU posted a 31-second video clip of the same segnement of the same incident that does NOT contain the idiotic claim made in your current link, and you did not even notice that? What kind of a buffoon are you, donkey-head? Woof!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “But on the other thread YOU posted a 31-second video clip of the same segnement of the same incident that does NOT contain the idiotic claim made in your current link,”

            Explain to me how those pictures and that commentary in any way contradicts the 31-second video clip.

            It. Doesn’t.

            The video clip clearly shows the IDF soldier pointing to a knife on the ground at the same time as we can clearly see that the girl’s body is lying on the ground.

            That is one continuous take, and that take is perfectly consistent with the eyewitness testimony that after shooting the girl the IDF soldiers just stood around rubber-necking and making calls on their mobile phones.

            The video clip then has a cut, and after that cut we see the IDF soldiers grabbing the girl’s body by her ankles and dragging her out from under the metal gate.

            The eyewitness shows us photos of exactly the same event, and his testimony gives us the exact time of that SECOND take: 8:01am.

            There is therefore absolutely no discrepancy between that testimony/photo and the 31-second video clip; both show that the IDF did **not** immediately “secure” the body after shooting the girl but, rather, that occurred at 8:01am.

            So I’ll ask again: how did that knife get there minutes after 7:46am when the IDF didn’t “secure” anything until 8:01am?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “At 8:01 am the soldiers dragged the woman’s body (…). In the same minute the victim came back to conscious and moved slowly her head. Immediately the Israeli soldiers pointed the guns at her, but she fell unconscious again. (Picture 19 – 8:01 am)”

            That is a complete lie, because it is NOT contained in your 31-second clip, unless you are now claiming that the video was altered? There are numerous other verifiable falsehoods with the account of Marcel Leme, but that’s how the ISM-terrorists /supporters work: conjecture, fabricate, exaggerate and smear. You don’t have a case. Give it up, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “So I’ll ask again: how did that knife get there minutes after 7:46am when the IDF didn’t “secure” anything until 8:01am?”

            QUESTION

            How did/do you know that “the IDF didn’t “secure” anything until 8:01am?”, donkey-head?

            BTW

            Need you be told that the thug’s body was – and I quote you – “secured” where it lay? Perhaps you can tell us how the dead thug should have been “secured” – according to YOU? Need I tell you that the reason the thug’s body was pulled across the metal bar is so that it can be taken away by the ambulance, since no car can get to where it laid? What kind of a buffoon are you, donkey-head?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “How did/do you know that “the IDF didn’t “secure” anything until 8:01am?”, donkey-head?”

            Ahem.

            You – yourself, on your very own, with no prompting from me – loudly insisted that the very first thing that the police do after gunning down a knife-wielder is to
            (a) handcuff the body and
            b) “secure” everything on that person in order to “preserve the chain of custody”.

            I’m quite correct to point out that the video clearly has that IDF soldier pointing to that knife on the ground IN THE SAME CONTINUOUS TAKE where we see that girl’s body lying on the ground with nary a single, solitary IDF soldier “securing” her body nor, indeed, “handcuffing” that body nor, indeed, standing anywhere near that body.

            She can be seen, very clearly, lying where she had just been felled, and quite untouched by anyone.

            And if that isn’t enough (and why isn’t it enough, exactly?) I’ll point you again to those series of photos and their accompanying commentary by that Brazilian eyewitness, who says that after shooting her five (or was that six?) times the IDF then stood around with their settler buddies, and all doing nothing more than indulging in rubber-necking and making phone calls on their cell phones.

            Indeed, he is quite clear on that point: the IDF soldiers just stood around and starred. His photos clearly support that.

            Indeed, all available evidence indicates that the only “action” that the IDF soldiers did prior to 8:01am was to fire a stun grenade at the Palestinian paramedics who were attempting to attend to that girl.

            Standard Operating Procedure, apparently, though not at all resembling the type that you have make-believed.

            Dude, all the evidence you need is out there. All you need to do is to open your eyes and look at it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “Perhaps you can tell us how the dead thug should have been “secured” – according to YOU?”

            Baby, you already answered your own question several days ago.

            Here, I’ll quote you.
            BigCat: “When cops kill a thug, first thing is to move the thug’s weapons away from the thug’s body (and in the United States handcuff the thug’s dead body) to a) make sure that the thug is no longer a threat, b) secure the chain of custody, c) preserve evidence, d) administer first aid, etc”

            Go back and look at the video at the Daily Mail.
            The girl is lying there, her hands are not handcuffed, nobody is administering first aid, nobody is securing anything, etc, etc.

            Now, go back to SANAÚD – VOLTAREMOS and look at the photos taken between 7:47am and 8:01am (seven photos in all) and read the testimony that accompanies them.

            Nobody is administering first aid.
            Nobody is attending to the body.
            Nobody is stopping those Israeli settlers from milling around.

            So between 7:47am and 8:01am nobody is doing a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. except rubber-necking with their Israeli settlers buddies, or ringing up on their cell phones to ask What Do I Do Next????

            You can **see** that they are just standing around.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself, donkey-head?

            “Now, go back to SANAÚD – VOLTAREMOS and look at the photos taken between 7:47am and 8:01am (seven photos in all) and read the testimony that accompanies them. Nobody is administering first aid. Nobody is attending to the body. Nobody is stopping those Israeli settlers from milling around. So between 7:47am and 8:01am nobody is doing a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. except rubber-necking with their Israeli settlers buddies, or ringing up on their cell phones to ask What Do I Do Next????”

            Apparently YOU know that “between 7:47am and 8:01am nobody is doing a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. except rubber-necking with their Israeli settlers buddies, or ringing up on their cell phones to ask What Do I Do Next????”, based on less than ONE-second photos (yeah, “photos” in plural. Flash is a near-instantaneous pulse, possibly 1/1000 second. YOU point to seven photos? Well do the math!)?! What a huge donkey-head you are. Your stupidity is indeed monumental!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “That is a complete lie, because it is NOT contained in your 31-second clip, unless you are now claiming that the video was altered?”

            The cut in that Daily Mail video very clearly indicates that the video is made up of two takes.

            The first take (where the IDF soldier points to the knife) is very clearly taken just after 7:46am.

            That is indisputable, because we can see that the pillars do not have any tape around them, and neither the white bucket nor the wicker chair have been moved, and the girl’s body is lying there quite “unsecured”.

            So that times that segment to just after that girl was gunned down.

            The second segment shows the moment when four IDF soldier dragged the girl’s body out from under the metal gate. So that second take is clearly showing the events that Leme describes as occurring at 8:01am.

            “That is a complete lie, because it is NOT contained in your 31-second clip, unless you are now claiming that the video was altered?”

            No, the video was not “altered”, it was cut short.

            That is indisputable, because that second take is only four seconds long.

            I have no doubt whatsoever that it was cut short because a few seconds later that girl moved her head, whereupon those IDF soldiers pointed their assault rifles at her, and the cameraman likewise crapped his pants.

            If you don’t believe me then go back here:
            http://sanaud-voltaremos.blogspot.com.br/p/brazil-26th-september-2015.html?m=1

            Leme very clearly was not lying when he said: “In the same minute the victim came back to conscious and moved slowly her head. Immediately the Israeli soldiers pointed the guns at her, but she fell unconscious again. (Picture 19 – 8:01 am)”

            You can ***see*** that one of the IDF soldiers in Photo 19 has his gun raised in the firing position, and he is aiming that gun exactly where that girl would be lying after being dragged out from under the metal gate.

            Dude, you can ***see*** it.

            So that photo shows exactly what Leme described i.e. a moment in time when something so spooked that IDF soldier that he raised his rifle and pointed it at whatever was spooking him.

            I’m genuinely curious, BigCat.

            What do you think he was taking aim at?

            The white bucket?
            The wicker chair?
            The metal gate?
            A fellow IDF soldiers?
            An Israeli settler?

            Because he’s indisputably pointing his gun at something, and he’s definitely not doing so for giggles.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            That’s another load of loooooooong idiotic mumbo jumbo from this donkey-head called “yeahright”. If you are at all honest, you would provide what I said in QUATATION MARKS and not distort and lie. Anyway:

            “yeahright1”

            “The video clip clearly shows the IDF soldier pointing to a knife on the ground at the same time as we can clearly see that the girl’s body is lying on the ground. That is one CONTINUOUS take…..”

            “yeahright2”

            “The video clip then HAS A CUT , and after that cut we see the IDF soldiers grabbing the girl’s body by her ankles and dragging her out from under the metal gate.”

            “yeahright3”

            “The cut in that Daily Mail video very clearly indicates that the video is made up of two takes”

            QUESTION

            1. Does “the video clip have a CUT”? or “Is the video clip ONE CONTINUOUS take”?
            2. If “the video clip has a CUT”, (a) at what time did it start rolling: at 7:43am or 7:46am or at 8:01am, AND (b) what is the duration of that “CUT”?
            3. “if the video clip is ONE CONTINUOUS take” at what time did it start rolling – at 7:43a. or 7:46am or at 8:01am?

            Pls, answer ONLY the questions! Let’s start exposing the huge donkey-head you are – AGAIN!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BigCat: “QUESTION”

            Queue the ignorant questions……

            BigCat: “1. Does “the video clip have a CUT”? or “Is the video clip ONE CONTINUOUS take”?”

            ANSWER: The video clip has a cut i.e. it consists of two takes.

            Each of those takes is filmed in ONE CONTINUOUS TAKE, the first of around 15 seconds duration, the second lasting only 4 seconds.

            The importance of that is this: the first take shows the knife to be already on the ground and it also shows that while Hashlamon had already been shot her body most definitely had not been “secured”, and it shows both of those facts IN ONE CONTINUOUS TAKE.

            QED: The IDF soldier could not possibly have put that knife on that spot by dint of “securing” it from Hashlamon’s body, precisely because her body is show to be quite “unsecured”.

            BigCat: “2. If “the video clip has a CUT”, (a) at what time did it start rolling: at 7:43am or 7:46am or at 8:01am, AND (b) what is the duration of that “CUT”?”

            ANSWER (a): none of the above.

            The first take shows Hashlamon already on the ground and quite “unsecured”, which would place that take between 7:48am (when she was definitely “down”) and 7:56am (when Israeli settlers started milling about).

            Probably much closer to 7:56am than to 7:48am, depending on who is holding that camera (i.e. if it is an IDF soldier doing the filming then it could be any time in those 8 minutes. If the camera belongs to an Israeli settler then the time is definitely 7:56am.)

            ANSWER (b): The second take begins at 8:01am, so the duration of that cut is somewhere between 13 minutes to 5 minutes in length, but more likely at the shorter end of the scale.

            BigCut: “3. “if the video clip is ONE CONTINUOUS take” at what time did it start rolling – at 7:43a. or 7:46am or at 8:01am?”

            ANSWER: None Of The Above.

            Then entire video clip consists of TWO takes, each one being ONE CONTINUOUS TAKE.

            The first take started sometime between 7:48am and 7:56am.
            The second take started at exactly 8:01am.

            BigCat: “Pls, answer ONLY the questions! Let’s start exposing the huge donkey-head you are – AGAIN!”

            Done. Anything else I can clear up for you?

            Because I’ll be honest with you, BigCat – you don’t appear to be very good at this.

            Mind you, yours is an impossible brief.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            1. “yeahright1”

            “The first take shows Hashlamon already on the ground and quite “unsecured”, which would place that take between 7:48am (when she was definitely “down”) and 7:56am (when Israeli settlers started milling about).”

            2. “yeahright2”

            “The second take begins at 8:01am, so the duration of that cut is somewhere between 13 minutes to 5 minutes in length, but more likely at the shorter end of the scale.”

            3. “yeahright3”

            “But we already see that knife lying on the ground in the FIRST part of that video i.e. the knife can already be seen on the ground before the IDF dragged that body out from under the metal gate in order to “secure” both the body and whatever evidence may be contained on it.”

            QUESTION

            a.Is it your opinion, based on your 31-second video (that probably consists of knitted parts of videos shot by two different individuals) that the first time Idf-soldiers searched the body of the thug for knife, bomb or any other weapon, was when they dragged the thug’s body across the metal barrier?

            b. How are the bodies of shot suspects “secured” at the scene of the shooting?

            Apparently YOU are confusing “securing” the thug’s body with removing weapons from the thug’s body. What kind of a dunce are you, donkey-head?

            Btw, if the thug was – ACCORDING TO YOU – shot at 7:48am, the soldiers would have secured her knife at 7:48am, moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Last sentence should read:

            “Btw, if the thug was – ACCORDING TO YOU – shot at 7:48am, the soldiers would have (a) secured her knife at 7:48am (that’s one of the most important things to do after shooting an armed suspect!) AND (b) left the dead body where (they felt) it laid HIGHLY “secured” until the ambulance arrived to take it away at which point the soldiers dragged the body across the metal barrier at – ACCORDING TO YOU – 8:01am, moron!”

            Is that too difficult for you to understand, donkey-head?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            This is getting waaaaay to easy.

            BigCat: “a.Is it your opinion, based on your 31-second video (that probably consists of knitted parts of videos shot by two different individuals) that the first time Idf-soldiers searched the body of the thug for knife, bomb or any other weapon, was when they dragged the thug’s body across the metal barrier?”

            It is not just my opinion, BigCat.
            It is also what is recorded in the photos taken at the scene by Leme.

            Here, indeed:
            http://sanaud-voltaremos.blogspot.com.br/p/brazil-26th-september-2015.html?m=1

            BugCat: “b. How are the bodies of shot suspects “secured” at the scene of the shooting?”

            You have already answered that:
            BigCat (last week): “When cops kill a thug, first thing is to move the thug’s weapons away from the thug’s body (and in the United States handcuff the thug’s dead body) to a) make sure that the thug is no longer a threat, b) secure the chain of custody, c) preserve evidence, d) administer first aid, etc.”

            None of those things are in evidence in that Daily Mail video clip. Not. A. One.

            QED: The IDF soldiers had not “secured” anything at the time that the IDF soldier is filmed pointing to a knife on the ground.

            BigCat: “Apparently YOU are confusing “securing” the thug’s body with removing weapons from the thug’s body. What kind of a dunce are you, donkey-head?”

            Well, someone certainly has managed to confuse themselves, but it is not me.

            Last week you insisted that “removing the weapon” is part and parcel of an (a)-(d) of police procedure, but NOW you insist that it is a totally unrelated act.

            Care to reconcile that self-contradiction?

            BigCat: “Btw, if the thug was – ACCORDING TO YOU – shot at 7:48am, the soldiers would have secured her knife at 7:48am, moron!”

            And ACCORDING TO YOU they would have also handcuffed the body “secured the chain of custody” and started administering first aid AT THE SAME TIME as they were “securing her knife”.

            Go back and look at that video, BigCat. Show me where there is even the slightest hint of any of that activity.

            Go back to Marcel Leme’s series of photographs. Show me any evidence of even the slightest hint of any of that activity.

            No such activity ever took place.

            QED: No “securing” of anything took place before 8:01am, prior to that the only thing those IDF soldiers did was stand next to those Israeli settlers and… rubber-neck.

            Nothing else, because if anything else had taken place then you’d see it in the background of that video, or it would have been evident in *any* of the photos that Marcel Leme took.

            You are simply spinning a fairy-tale, BigCat, and one where your storytelling keeps changing.

            Stick to the facts, Dude, because they are your only friend.

            But whatever you do don’t use your imagination, coz’ we’ve just seen that this only ends up with you tied up in knots.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Whenever you nervously scream “QED”, “I am absolutely correct”, “Everyone is wrong, but my conjectures”, “This is getting waaaaay to easy”, blah, blah, blah, we know it for what it is: seeing your idiotic claims crumble and feverishly trying to find a face saving way out! I will ignore on purpose most of you latest REPETITIVE mumbo jumbo, concentrate on what matters right now and may come back to them as needed.

            1. “ yeahright1”

            BigCat: “a.Is it your opinion, based on your 31-second video (that probably consists of knitted parts of videos shot by two different individuals) that the first time Idf-soldiers searched the body of the thug for knife, bomb or any other weapon, was when they dragged the thug’s body across the metal barrier?” It is not just my opinion, BigCat. It is also what is recorded in the photos taken at the scene by Leme.”

            2. “yeahright2”

            “BigCat: “Btw, if the thug was – ACCORDING TO YOU – shot at 7:48am, the soldiers would have secured her knife at 7:48am, moron!” And ACCORDING TO YOU they would have also handcuffed the body “secured the chain of custody” and started administering first aid AT THE SAME TIME as they were “securing her knife”.

            a. At least you are not refuting the fact that (a) secured her knife at 7:48am (that’s one of the most important things to do after shooting an armed suspect!) AND (b) left the dead body where (they felt) it laid HIGHLY “secured” until the ambulance arrived to take it away at which point the soldiers dragged the body across the metal barrier at – ACCORDING TO YOU – 8:01am (when, according to you again, the “second part” of your 31-second video started rolling), moron! Some people would understand that in ONE second, BUT it took SEVERAL DAYS to ram it thru your rock-hard donley-skull. Bravo!

            b. And no, moron, I did NOT say that the thug’s body would have handcuffed in Israel to “secure” it – as YOU put it. Don’t you even understand English? What part of “and in the United States handcuff the thug’s dead body” is too difficult to get thru your rock-hard, confused donkey skull?!

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “a. At least you are not refuting the fact that soldiers (a)…..”

            “b. And no, moron, I did NOT say that the thug’s body would have TO BE handcuffed in Israel to “secure” it – as YOU put it. Don’t you even understand English? What part of “(and in the United States handcuff the thug’s dead body)” is too difficult to get thru your rock-hard, confused donkey skull?! The thug’s body was HIGHLY secured where it laid until ambulance came to take it away – at which point soldiers pulled it across the metal barriers, because no cars, no stretchers can get to where the body laid HIGHLY secured, you delusional donkey-head!”

            – were meant.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Btw

            It seems your donkey-head STILL has no idea what is meant by “the chain of custody”? What kind of an idiot are you, donkey-head? “Chain of custody” relates to items used/dropped during the commission of a crime at the crime scene. In this case we are talking about the thug’s KNIFE re “chain of custody”, not the thug’s body, moron! You can read all about it here again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

            Don’t let any of that confuse you even more!

            Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Until the IDF releases the video footage nothing is certain about the specific event, and if they don’t release it, that will tell us that what the IDF is saying is false on one or more levels. We will have to wait and see. No matter what else transpired, this, by itself, if true, is damning:

      “Two eye witnesses say that at that point the soldier who fired the first shots approached her, crossed the metal barrier that was separating them, stood over her, and shot her again, in the stomach, and then in the chest.”

      Aside from that, though, continuing to speculate with pseudo-surety and crude racist certainty about this woman’s death and her motives, is so much blather that ought not distract from the larger points Rotem makes:

      “Israeli soldiers have killed more than 25 Palestinians in the West Bank so far in 2015, a number of which raised serious questions about the soldiers’ judgement. Nevertheless, not a single soldier who killed a Palestinian was put on trial. That is the message the IDF sends to its soldiers, and the soldiers who killed Hashlamon came to the checkpoint last week having fully internalized that message.
      It is too late for Hadeel al-Hashlamon but the message must be changed. The IDF cannot be allowed to investigate itself because it always finds itself innocent. The shooters must be put on trial, and an independent — non military — body must decide whether the shooting was justified. Until then, there will be no justice.”

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        Look who is talking about racism: the psychopath “Ben” who ON THIS site also poses as “Viktor Arajs” and “MuslimJew” to spew raw anti-Semitic slurs ON THIS site. You can’t even write on full sentence without copying and pasting the opinions of others to compensate for your incompetence, and literarily licking the a$$ of every single +972pundit begging to acceptance.

        You are pathetic, Viktor….eh…. “Ben”. Get a life!

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Oh hey thanks I love you too. LoL. When did you get out of the penitentiary?

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Since our YR claims to be Australian, I decided to search the net and see how such situations are handled in his country. And looky what I came across…

            http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/police-shoot-dead-knife-wielding-woman-at-hoxton-hungry-jacks/6082788

            Who knows what motivated these women? Suicide by police? Lunacy? The fact is that the reaction by both the Israeli and Australian authorities was the same.

            Now YR, what are you doing about what happened in your own home?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “Who knows what motivated these women? Suicide by police? ”

            *sigh*

            Gustav has tried this nonsense before, where he insists that events on two sides of the globe allow him to draw a parallel conclusion i.e. women are suicidal, and must all be cut from the same cloth.

            It is a laughable argument, because two could play at that game.

            And don’t even need to cast our eyes to the other side of the globe to play it.

            Heck, we don’t even need to leave Hebron, because there are videos on the web showing Baruch Goldstein – wearing his IDF uniform, no less – perpetrating a massacre on the Palestinians as they went about their daily business in Hebron.

            Who knows what motivates these Israeli soldiers? Blood lust? Religious intolerance?

            I dunno, but there appears to be a common thread connecting Baruch Goldstein to those two IDF soldiers at that checkpoint, and it is a very bloody thread indeed.

            See, Gustav, it really is that easy.

            So I suggest that you leave the cheap shots in your pocket, dude, because all you are doing is leaving yourself wiiiiiiiiiiide open to Payment In Kind.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Notice the trend.

            YR and his buddies keep on bringing up Baruch Goldstein while we can bring up hundreds of Arab Baruch Goldstein equivalents. Yet he claims we are the baddies.

            YR immediately jumps to conclusions when a knife wielding woman gets killed by Israelis. Yet when the same thing hapens in peaceful Australia where there are less reasons for the police to be jumpy, he dismisses the parallels.

            So tell us oh mighty phubah, yes you, the opinionated one, YR, what makes you such an authority on these types of incidents? Could it be your bias? There are claims and counter claims yet you act as if you were there and saw everything. Oh, and as usual, you push your biased nose into what is happening half way around the world from you and you ignore what is happening at your home. Physician, heal thyself!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “YR and his buddies keep on bringing up Baruch Goldstein while we can bring up hundreds of Arab Baruch Goldstein equivalents. ”

            Notice the trend: Gustav likes nothing better than to derail a thread by turning it into a discussion of Something Else.

            He starts by pointing us to a story of some poor, deranged knife-wielding woman in Sydney, and when I illustrate how utterly pointless that game is he leaps upon that as a way of continuing that game.

            Sad, but true.

            “Yet he claims we are the baddies.”

            Who is “we”, Gustav? There is not much point playing the “victim card” if you don’t identify who it is that you are claiming to be victimized.

            I “claimed” nothing more than that the game you were playing is the height of pointlessness, and I illustrated that by pointing out – quite correctly – that I don’t have to go any further than Hebron itself to play that very same game.

            Nothing more.
            No less.

            “YR immediately jumps to conclusions when a knife wielding woman gets killed by Israelis.”

            Notice that Gustav has just jumped to a conclusion, based upon….. nothing more than the say-so of the Israelis who killed her.

            Certainly not on the basis of any photographic or video evidence, all of which contradicts the story being peddled by those same Israelis.

            “Yet when the same thing hapens in peaceful Australia where there are less reasons for the police to be jumpy, he dismisses the parallels.”

            Mainly because the “parallels” are easily dismissed, seeing as how the actions of those NSW policemen was immediately followed by a thorough – and thoroughly vetted – investigation both by the police itself and by the NSW coroner.

            Look this word up, Gustav: transparency

            Very evident in the case you keep trying to distract us with.
            Utterly lacking in this case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Post 1 of 2….

            GUSTAV:“YR and his buddies keep on bringing up Baruch Goldstein while we can bring up hundreds of Arab Baruch Goldstein equivalents. ”

            YR;”Notice the trend: Gustav likes nothing better than to derail a thread by turning it into a discussion of Something Else.”

            ***Chortle***

            I don’t recall bringing up Baruch Baruch Goldstein, you brought him up, dude.

            YR:”He starts by pointing us to a story of some poor, deranged knife-wielding woman in Sydney, and when I illustrate how utterly pointless that game is he leaps upon that as a way of continuing that game.”

            What, YR? You as an Australian, don’t care about what your police do to an Australian woman? You only care about how our soldiers react to a woman who is of a people who have been waging relentless war on us for 100 years? Sus, very sus, why are you obsessed solely with us? Do oil sheiks pay your salary by the word? Or by the sentence? Is that why your posts are so verbose?

            YR:”Sad, but true.”

            Indeed, very sad but true. You people are obsessed and one eyed. Sad indeed.

            GUSTAV:“Yet he claims we are the baddies.”

            YR:”Who is “we”, Gustav? There is not much point playing the “victim card” if you don’t identify who it is that you are claiming to be victimized.”

            What? Moi, moi is playing the victim card? Nah, I am just countering your never ending whining about your poor, poor, poor Palestinians whom we supposedly victimize. As to who ‘we’ are, what a stupid question.

            YR:”I “claimed” nothing more than blah blah blah”

            Yep, you just claimed… claimed lotsa things and made lotsa assertions…

            YR”Nothing more.”

            Yep nothing more…

            YR:”No less.”

            Nah, no less….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Post 2 of 2…

            GUSTAV:“YR immediately jumps to conclusions when a knife wielding woman gets killed by Israelis.”

            YR:”Notice that Gustav has just jumped to a conclusion, based upon….. nothing more than the say-so of the Israelis who killed her.

            What conclusion did I jump to YR? Tell us. Tell us the conclusion that I jumped to? That she had a knife? Let’s see the alternative… the soldiers killed her for sport? I guess in theory it is possible, such things do happen with many armies. But usually one requires evidence, not conjectures to make such accusations.

            YR:”Certainly not on the basis of any photographic or video evidence, all of which contradicts the story being peddled by those same Israelis.”

            Now he is playing Sherlock Holmes by remote control. What are you, YR, a forensic scientist? You sound more like a puffed up self important little peacock.

            GUSTAV:“Yet when the same thing hapens in peaceful Australia where there are less reasons for the police to be jumpy, he dismisses the parallels.”

            YR:”Mainly because the “parallels” are easily dismissed, seeing as how the actions of those NSW policemen was immediately followed by a thorough – and thoroughly vetted – investigation both by the police itself and by the NSW coroner.”

            Scusa moi? When did this Hebron incident happen?

            Oh and I take it you are also very upset with Hamas for not conducting a thorough investigation about the anti tank missile which murdered an Israeli child on a school bus a few years ago? Have they got the culprit who fired it securely behind bars? Nah, YR? That does not concern you? What a surprise.

            YR:”Look this word up, Gustav: transparency

            Very evident in the case you keep trying to distract us with.
            Utterly lacking in this case.”

            I’ll tell ya what you should look up YR. look up which country has been elected to chair the UN Human Rights Council Panel. You guessed it. It is that paragon of virtue of human rights, SAUDI ARABIA. Yep, go check it out … SAUDI ARABIA no less, need I say more? That’s the kind of world we live in. So pardon me for being cynical when pretentious little morons like you stand on your soap boxes and try to berate us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            GUSTAV: “YR immediately jumps to conclusions when a knife wielding woman gets killed by Israelis.”

            The phrase “a knife wielding woman” requires Gustav to jump to the conclusion that the IDF’s statement that she was wielding a knife is an indisputable truth rather than (as it indisputably is) a contested claim.

            GUSTAV: “What conclusion did I jump to YR? Tell us. Tell us the conclusion that I jumped to? That she had a knife?”

            Got. It. In. One.

            GUSTAV: “Let’s see the alternative… the soldiers killed her for sport?”

            Straw man argument.

            GUSTAV: “I guess in theory it is possible, such things do happen with many armies.”

            Annnnd, that would be Gustav arguing with his own straw man.

            GUSTAV: “But usually one requires evidence, not conjectures to make such accusations.”

            Ahem, Gustav, I’m over here. You’re actually still arguing with your own straw man.

            And before you start shrieking and spluttering, let me explain this to you.

            The phrase you used is “not conjectures to make such accusations”.

            The “accusation” to which you refer is actually this one: “the soldiers killed her for sport?”

            But that is an accusation that **you** just made, not **me**.

            QED: A Straw Man Argument.

            Look it up, dude, because it appears that you wouldn’t know one if it tripped you up.

            Which is beyond funny, because that straw man of yours just did.

            [… further Gustav-nonsense, not even worth responding to …]

            GUSTAV: “I’ll tell ya what you should look up YR. look up which country has been elected to chair the UN Human Rights Council Panel.”

            Oh, dear, here’s another phrase you should look up: non-sequitur.

            It appears that Gustav thinks that he can beat me into submission by throwing every logical-fallacy in the book, and hoping that I don’t notice that they are, ahem, fallacious.

            Either that or he’s too stupid to know what a “leap of logic”, a “straw man argument”, and a “non-sequitur” actually is.

            The jury’s still out on that one, I guess…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I am arguing with another demented obsessive Israel hater who calls himself YR. So firstly, let me declare my position to REAL people.

            First, I have nothing against the Australian police. I only brought up their unfortunate case with that poor woman whom they shot, in order to show that such incidents can and do happen even in peaceful countries let alone in the war torn Middle East.

            Secondly, I brought the case up, in order to see how our intrepid YR reacts to such incidents in his own country. And the contrast in his attitude was startling…

            …oh he said… the two cases are entirely different coz the Australian police shot her only once…

            …duh, but the woman is still dead and there are no suicide bombers in Australia..

            …oh but says YR, the two cases are different because a thorough investigation was conducted in Australia…

            …duh, the Hebron incident happened about 6 days ago and poor old YR is full of righteous indignation coz Israel has not yet managed to conduct a thorough investigation…

            …again, the contrast in YR’s attitude is startling. Notice how meekly and mildly he accepted the outcome of the inquiry of the Sydney incident in which the police were exonerated, judging by what YR told us…

            …but what is YR’s record about Israeli investigations of such incidents? Yes, contrary to YR’s assertions, such incidents ARE investigated and there were instances when soldiers were found guilty of misconduct. But not only does YR expect a 100% guilty verdict, he expects the verdict immediately. Nothing less satisfies our YR.

            …compare and contrast

            And now in his latest post, poor old YR dragged in his dreaded “straw man” accusation. He claims that the Israeli army invented the knife. So if there was no knife, why did they kill the woman? He says that my rhetorical question that they killed her for sport? Is a straw man argument… ah ok then… so what is his argument? I can’t wait to hear it…

            …this little puffed up peacock is too funny… He then brought in his other dreaded weapon. The “non sequitur” argument. Oh … no ….!!! How am I going to cope with that one…?!

            …easily. It isn’t a non sequitur. We live in a world in which Saudi Arabia gets elected as Chair of the UN Human Rights council. And the YR’s of this world with their bias partisan attitude contribute to that kind of world. One needs to remind honest decent people of that fact coz sometimes they are too busy to notice and they momentarily accept the BS of the YRs of this world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            …too funny. This YR fellow just breaks me up…

            …ever notice his stock standard methodology for arguing his BS?

            …sooner or later he ***Chortles***, that’s why in one of my earlier posts, I mocked him with it…

            …sooner or later he accuses his adversaries of using “straw man” arguments….

            …sooner or later he asserts that those who disagree with him have non sequitur arguments…

            It never fails. Seriously, he is so predictable…

            Oh but I miss his “gosh and golly gosh” antics, he used to do those to death too…

            … and then there is his school master persona where he, wait for it… he bzzzzzt’s one and declares, “wrong answer”.

            This guy, YR, is a legend in his own mind. Poor fellow.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Sooooooo, we have in that last post proof-positive that Gustav does not understand how and why these are logical-fallacies:
            a) The “jump to conclusions”
            b) The “straw man argument”
            c) The “non-sequitur”

            Demonstrably so, because this statement:
            Gustav: “YR immediately jumps to conclusions when a knife wielding woman gets killed by Israelis” requires him to jump to the conclusion that the IDF’s claim that she was “wielding a knife” is a self-evident trutch.

            Equally, this statement:
            Gustav: “Let’s see the alternative… the soldiers killed her for sport?”
            involves nothing more – nor less – than him erecting a Man Of Straw with whom he can then argue.

            And, finally, this statement:
            Gustav: “I’ll tell ya what you should look up YR. look up which country has been elected to chair the UN Human Rights Council Panel”
            would fit any dictionary definition of a non-sequitur.

            Yet Gustav is so ignorant that he refuses to accept that any of them involve any logical fallacies whatsoever.

            Even though…. the first is without a doubt a “jump to conclusion”, the second is demonstrably a “straw man argument”, and the third is indisputably a “non-sequitur”.

            Sad, but true….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Seems like either YR does not read my post or is pretending to ignore it coz he is repeating his foolish earlier post. So I will repeat my post too…

            I am arguing with another demented obsessive Israel hater who calls himself YR. So firstly, let me declare my position to REAL people.

            First, I have nothing against the Australian police. I only brought up their unfortunate case with that poor woman whom they shot, in order to show that such incidents can and do happen even in peaceful countries let alone in the war torn Middle East.

            Secondly, I brought the case up, in order to see how our intrepid YR reacts to such incidents in his own country. And the contrast in his attitude was startling…

            …oh he said… the two cases are entirely different coz the Australian police shot her only once…

            …duh, but the woman is still dead and there are no suicide bombers in Australia..

            …oh but says YR, the two cases are different because a thorough investigation was conducted in Australia…

            …duh, the Hebron incident happened about 6 days ago and poor old YR is full of righteous indignation coz Israel has not yet managed to conduct a thorough investigation…

            …again, the contrast in YR’s attitude is startling. Notice how meekly and mildly he accepted the outcome of the inquiry of the Sydney incident in which the police were exonerated, judging by what YR told us…

            …but what is YR’s record about Israeli investigations of such incidents? Yes, contrary to YR’s assertions, such incidents ARE investigated and there were instances when soldiers were found guilty of misconduct. But not only does YR expect a 100% guilty verdict, he expects the verdict immediately. Nothing less satisfies our YR.

            …compare and contrast

            And now in his latest post, poor old YR dragged in his dreaded “straw man” accusation. He claims that the Israeli army invented the knife. So if there was no knife, why did they kill the woman? He says that my rhetorical question that they killed her for sport? Is a straw man argument… ah ok then… so what is his argument? I can’t wait to hear it…

            …this little puffed up peacock is too funny… He then brought in his other dreaded weapon. The “non sequitur” argument. Oh … no ….!!! How am I going to cope with that one…?!

            …easily. It isn’t a non sequitur. We live in a world in which Saudi Arabia gets elected as Chair of the UN Human Rights council. And the YR’s of this world with their bias partisan attitude contribute to that kind of world. One needs to remind honest decent people of that fact coz sometimes they are too busy to notice and they momentarily accept the BS of the YRs of this world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “And now in his latest post, poor old YR dragged in his dreaded “straw man” accusation. He claims that the Israeli army invented the knife.”

            I claim that the girl could not have dropped that knife there. The evidence shows that I am correct: The photos show that there was no knife there when she was on “their side” of that metal gate, and she could not have dropped it there when she was on the “other side” of that metal gate.

            BigCat agrees with me on this: the reason why the knife was there is because that IDF soldier put it there. The only remaining question is where did he get it from.

            BigCat argues that he got if by taking it from her.
            I argue that the video makes that impossible.

            The only remaining explanation is that the soldier had that knife because it was his knife. It is the ONLY explanation that is not contradicted by the evidence.

            “So if there was no knife, why did they kill the woman?”

            That’s a very good question.

            “He says that my rhetorical question that they killed her for sport?”

            And that’s when Gustav started erecting his straw man.

            Dude, it’s not **just** that you asked “a rhetorical question”, it’s that you then started arguing against it *as* *if* someone else had just posed that question to you.

            “Is a straw man argument…”

            Yes, it is a straw man argument to pose a rhetorical question and then argue against it *as* *if* someone else had posed that question to you.

            ” ah ok then… ”

            Hallelujah!!!!!!! Gustav finally sees that he has committed a logical fallacy of “the straw man argument”.

            Progress of sorts, I suppose.

            “so what is his argument? I can’t wait to hear it…”

            My argument is set out above i.e. the IDF soldier who shot that girl knew that he had just carried out an extrajudicial execution, and so he planted that knife there in an attempt to blame the victim.

            As to **why** those two soldiers shot that girl: look at the bug-eyes on the soldier to the left, who looks like he is about to crap his pants.

            So the reason why they shot her is simplicity itself: these soldiers are little more than badly-trained and over-armed thugs who have been desensitized towards a captive population that has been demonized.

            The girl set off a metal detector, the soldiers let their lack of training take over i.e. they crapped their pants, raised their weapons, and shot the girl.

            Oh, yeah, and then planted a knife at the scene.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The only remaining explanation is that the soldier had that knife because it was his knife. It is the ONLY explanation that is not contradicted by the evidence.”

            No it isn’t dude. I could come up with half a dozen other explanations but I won’t coz unlike you, I am not going to play an amateur forensic scientist.

            I still say, YR, you are up yourself as usual. You have come to your usual one sided conclusion and you feverishly concoct a mish mash of pseudo evidence to match your assertions.

            Your attitude to this unfortunate incident is startlingly different to the similar unfortunate incident in your country. Why? Coz you are biased to your cotton pickin’ eyeballs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “I could come up with half a dozen other explanations but I won’t coz unlike you, I am not going to play an amateur forensic scientist. ”

            Translation: when I point out to Gustav that the available evidence does not support the claim that she ever wielded that knife then he simply waves his hands about and says: I Don’t Want To Talk About That.

            Gustav, baby, there is a knife. We can see it, and it is lying on the ground. One of the IDF soldiers who shot this girl went out of his way to point that knife out to the cameraman.

            Now, so sorry, but you can’t handwave that knife away.

            Either:
            a) You can explain how that knife got from *that* girl to *that* bit o’ dirt (in which case the girl becomes your “knife-wielding terrorist”), or
            b) You can’t come up with a plausible explanation for how that knife made the journey from *her* dead body to *that* spot on the ground (in which case calling her a “knife-wielding terrorist” is merely an exercise in leaping-to-conclusions).

            Now I going to say this one more time: there is no plausible explanation that can get that knife from *her* hand to *that* spot.

            Over to you, because you have just claimed that you can come up with just such a plausible explanation.

            OK then, let’s hear it……

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh…

            But I did talk about it. You just ignored what I said, YR. you are acting as if I said nothing and you did not respond.

            Oh well, it figures. Go ahead and pretend that you are right. I bet your mummy told you that you were always right that’s why you cannot accept it when you are wrong, which is often. You just cannot accept it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Too funny for words…..

            Here, I’ll let Gustav explain it.

            Gustav (then): “ah ok then… so what is his argument? I can’t wait to hear it…”
            Gustav (now): “I could come up with half a dozen other explanations but I won’t coz unlike you, I am not going to play an amateur forensic scientist.”

            Apparently my hypocritical little troll is a adherent of the “Do as I say, not as I do” school of debate.

            Otherwise known as the “lacking the courage of his convictions” movement, which is as funny as it is pathetic.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            That’s another load of idiotic mumbo jumbo. If you are at all honest, you would provide what I said in QUATATION MARKS and not distort and lie. Anyway:

            “yeahright1”

            “The video clip clearly shows the IDF soldier pointing to a knife on the ground at the same time as we can clearly see that the girl’s body is lying on the ground. That is one CONTINUOUS take…..”

            “yeahright2”

            “The video clip then HAS A CUT , and after that cut we see the IDF soldiers grabbing the girl’s body by her ankles and dragging her out from under the metal gate.”

            QUESTION

            1. Does “the video clip have a CUT”? or “Is the video clip ONE CONTINUOUS take”?
            2. If “the video clip has a CUT”, (a) at what time did it start rolling: at 7:43am or 7:46am or at 8:01am, AND (b) what is the duration of that “CUT”?
            3. “if the video clip is ONE CONTINUOUS take” at what time did it start rolling – at 7:43a. or 7:46am or at 8:01am?

            Pls, answer ONLY the questions! Let’s start exposing you what a huge donkey-head you are – AGAIN!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Translation: when I point out to Gustav that the available evidence does not support the claim that she ever wielded that knife then he simply waves his hands about and says: I Don’t Want To Talk About That.”

            Typical YR, like a dog with a bone with his stupid guessing game and conspiracy theories. Ok, you insist that I should play your game? Ok, I will…

            I mean it is highly obvious that the poor soldiers were set up. Probably the poor 18 year old was set up too.

            Her handlers convinced her that she should give them bloody Israelis a scare. So she fronted up, at some point she drew the knife but once she realized that this matter is more serious than what she was told it would be, she dropped the knife.

            In the meanwhile, her cronies were diligently photographing everything but photoshopped out any evidence that would go against what they intended to do – another propaganda coup against the evil Israeli soldiers. Coz they intended to sacrifice her all along for their cause.

            Then, at the end of it, they went into overdrive with their coordinated testimonies.

            Like that one YR? It is no worse a story than yours. Both our stories are just assertions based on selective evidence. Mine is based on the fact that such incidents happened before.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Her handlers convinced her that she should give them bloody Israelis a scare. So she fronted up, at some point she drew the knife but once she realized that this matter is more serious than what she was told it would be, she dropped the knife.”

            OK, I can stop you there and point of that the available evidence shows that your claim is quite impossible.

            Here, in fact:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245438/Dramatic-moment-Israeli-soldier-points-rifle-veiled-teenage-Palestinian-student-shot-dead-moments-later-attempting-stab-West-Bank-checkpoint-guard.html

            Look at the very first photo.

            Note that in that photo:
            a) Hashlamon has already retreated behind the metal gate, and
            b) We can see that there is **no** knife lying on the ground next to the pillar.

            So your “story” requires her to “drop the knife” in that spot when she was already standing behind that metal gate, even though she is now 3m away from that spot, and with two fully-armed Israeli soldiers blocking her path.

            I.M.P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E.

            Gustav: “Like that one YR? It is no worse a story than yours.”

            Untrue, your story is infinitely worse than mine, precisely because it is based on a claim that the evidence shows to be quite impossible.

            Gustav: “Both our stories are just assertions based on selective evidence.”

            Except…. there is evidence that shows that your story is quite impossible, whereas all the evidence supports mine.

            That is rather a big difference, Gustav.

            Gustav: “Mine is based on the fact that such incidents happened before.”

            And how nice for you. I certainly agree that the IDF has a sordid history of shooting down unarmed Palestinians and then covering it up afterwards.

            What I don’t understand is why you think that’s OK.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And here is the clincher YR.

            The woman was wearing a burqa, head to toe. Yet she was a uni student. Aaaaaaand… she wore jeans and sneakers under the burqa. Why? …

            …coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.

            She was a modern woman yet she dressed out of character and acted suspiciously. Voila, there you have it…

            … either suicide by police, like the Sydney woman, or she was a dupe…

            Like my theory, YR? Can you prove it wrong? Nah, see? I can assert too. Two can play the game.

            Now how about leave it to the experts? As I said, unlike your Palestinians, Israel has convicted it’s own soldiers in the past when they were found guilty of misconduct. Show me even one Palestinian murdering terrorist who has killed Israeli civilians who was convicted by Hamas or even the PA? Ya can’t and ya know ya can’t!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            BigCat: “Like my theory, YR? Can you prove it wrong?”

            Well, yes. Yes, I can. She wasn’t wearing a burqa.

            She was wearing a niqab, and it is perfectly normal for a Muslim girl to wear a niqab over jeans and sneakers, and those soldiers would have seen just such a combination many times every single day.

            BigCat: “She was a modern woman yet she dressed out of character”…

            Strike Two. The sight of a Palestinian woman wearing niqab + jeans + sneakers would not strike those Israeli soldiers as being “suspicious” nor would it make them “scared”.

            BigCat: …”and acted suspiciously”

            I’m calling Three Strikes And Yer’ Out on that one, Cat.

            The IDF soldiers overreacted because a metal detector went off.

            No “action” on her part started that overreaction, the metal detector did that.

            And once they overreacted, well, heck, that’s when they started pointing their guns at her and started shouting at her in their (i.e. to her, foreign) language.

            I’m rather at a loss how you expect a young girl to “act” when someone points a gun at her and starts shouting over-excited gibberish.

            I would suggest that “not making a move” is a perfectly sound “act” in the face of such histrionics.

            I’ll note also that Fawaz Abu Aisheh did not seem the least bit “scared” by her behaviour, nor did he appear to think it the least bit “suspicious” that she reacted to all that unintelligible histrionics by standing stock-still.

            Which is all credit to him, since he wasn’t wearing body-armour and he wasn’t armed with an assault rifle. In marked contrast to those two over-armed gutless wonders.

            You really are a card, BigCat. I’ve heard many pathetic excuses from Israeli apologists, but saying that a Palestinian deserved to die – of course she did! – because everyone known that IDF conscripts are a poorly-trained and cowardly rabble really does take the cake.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            It seems you are too rattled and confused to THINK clearly, are you not, donkey-head? Hilarious! The discussion is between YOU and GUSTAV, remember? You must be “seeing things” again, are you not, donkey-head?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yep YR, I am with BigCat, you are a donkey head.

            Poor old YR, he is into it now. Dat’s what he wanted all along for me to come up with theories whereas all I said was that anyone can come up with theories which rely on assertions and pseudo facts.

            Hey, earth to YR. My position was and still is to rely on the experts rather than speculate like you, remember? But now you are arguing, so I will pick up some of your arguments and demonstrate that BigCat is right to call you a donkey head, LOL…

            Donkey Head:”She was wearing a niqab, and it is perfectly normal for a Muslim girl to wear a niqab over jeans and sneakers”

            Wow, I am impressed, you are very knowledgable about Muslim girls. Are you a Muslim by any chance? In any case, my point about her wearing clothing out of character still stands.

            Donkey Head:”and those soldiers would have seen just such a combination many times every single day.”

            Wow, how do you know?

            Donkey Head:”Strike Two.”

            Oh nooooo… I can’t argue with him. Now he has assumed his school teacher persona.

            Donkey Head:”The sight of a Palestinian woman wearing niqab + jeans + sneakers would not strike those Israeli soldiers as being “suspicious” nor would it make them “scared”.”

            Got me there, man… Whisper aside: the boy has a mind like a steel trap…

            The only problem is that he missed my point. The soldiers didn’t even see her jeans and sneakers. She was covered from head to toe and she could have had anything under her clothing. On top of dat, she acted suspiciously and that in the middle east can be spooky. Go figure…

            Donkey Head: “I’m calling Three Strikes And Yer’ Out on that one, Cat.”

            Got me with that argument, teacher, LOL.

            YR:”The IDF soldiers overreacted because a metal detector went off.

            No “action” on her part started that overreaction, the metal detector did that.”

            Yes…yes … teacher I am with you on that but the two facts are not mutually exclusive … her clothing spooked them too, ya don’t think?

            YR:”And once they overreacted, well, heck, that’s when they started pointing their guns at her and started shouting at her in their (i.e. to her, foreign) language.”

            Yes, and?

            YR:”I’m rather at a loss how you expect a young girl to “act” when someone points a gun at her and starts shouting over-excited gibberish.”

            Hey baby, I didn’t criticize how she acted, I am just the messenger, ya wanted me to argue with you so I am arguing and now ya want to shoot me? Ok, LOL. I gotta stop here. You are too much…

            What a boring little buffoon.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Dat’s what he wanted all along for me to come up with theories whereas all I said was that anyone can come up with theories which rely on assertions and pseudo facts. ”

            Time to point out – yet again – that the fundamental difference is this: the theory that Gustav does come up with is demonstrably false, since it is indisputably contradicted by the available evidence.

            Here, I’ll point out the discrepancy for him **again**.

            My argumentative (not to mention imaginative) little friend insists that Hashlamon “dropped the knife”, yet the very first photo at the Daily Mail web site shows Hashlamon already 3m to stand behind that metal gate, and in that photo we can see the very spot where that knife was “dropped”.

            And…. there is no knife.

            So that one photo is all that is required to completely refute Gustav’s pet theory.

            That is axiomatic, because Gustav’s pet theory requires us to accept the notion that Hashlamon “dropped the knife” in a location that:
            a) She was 3m away from, and
            b) was separated from by a metal gate, and
            c) with two heavily armed and trigger-happy IDF soldiers in her way.

            So, come on, Gustav, show some more imagination: explain to me how she could have “dropped the knife” at that location from her position behind that gate.

            Take your time…. coz’ I really think you’re gonna need it.

            Because this is a truism: it isn’t enough JUST to come up with an imaginative theory. That theory ALSO has to stand up against the available evidence.

            If it can’t then it’s false. And, so sorry, Gustav’s pet theory can’t stand up in the face of that photo, which means that Gustav’s pet theory is false.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old YR, he is still trying so hard to be right pity he is short on substance. Here is the information he is steadfastly avoiding from supplying…

            1. A link to the pictures that he is referring to.

            2. Who took those pictures.

            3. Who makes the claim about what happened in each picture.

            4. The sequence of the pictures.

            5. What other pictures are there?

            6. Who may have photoshopped what pictures?

            I could go on… none of YR’s claims would stand a chance in any decent court of law as opposed to the kind of kangaroo court which our biased little YR is trying to run.

            Tell me, my assertive little pigeon? Tell me a time when you ever have not taken a reflexive pro Arab anti Israel stance, YR? The answer is NEVER so your claims mean nothing coz you are biased to your eyeballs. It is just boring. You are boring me to tears with your stupid unsubstantiated claims. And they are unsubstantiated coz you are using unsubstantiated, unverified and insufficient evidence.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I’d like to point out that amongst all the derision neither Gustav nor BigCat actually address the substance i.e. Gustav put forward the flawed theory that those IDF soldiers were obviously going to be “scared” and “suspicious” of a Muslim woman who is wearing burqa + jeans + sneakers.

            Indeed, the theory claims that combining western wear with a burqa is *so* suspicious that it must have been deliberately chosen to elicit fear and suspicion.

            As theories go it fails, because it can not pass even the first evidentiary test.

            Q: Was She Wearing A Burqa?
            A: No, she wasn’t.

            She was wearing a niqab, and it is a fact that the combination of niqab + jeans + sneakers is so commonplace that it should elicit no “suspicion” from anyone, much less reduce the startled onlooker to abject bug-eyed, trigger-happy terror.

            Odd, isn’t it?

            The theory was put forward with a Great Big Florish, but when it is pointed out that its fundamental conceit is factually incorrect then that fatal flaw is simply…. ignored.

            Quite bizarre.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Too funny. Talking about YR and straw men (note, I said MEN not MAN) coz poor old YR has brought up several straw men.

            YR:”Gustav put forward the flawed theory that those IDF soldiers were obviously going to be “scared” and “suspicious” of a Muslim woman who is wearing burqa + jeans + sneakers.”

            Yep and don’t forget the metal detector and the girl’s behavior.

            YR:Indeed, the theory claims that combining western wear with a burqa is *so* suspicious that it must have been deliberately chosen to elicit fear and suspicion.”

            Nope, that is YOUR theory. The soldiers initially didn’t even see what she had under her clothing.

            However, in hindsight since we now know what she wore and that she wasn’t an old fashioned person. That she was a westernized university student, yes, in hindsight that outfit adds to the suspicion about what she set ou to do.

            YR:”As theories go it fails, because it can not pass even the first evidentiary test.”

            If ya say so my assertive little pigeon.

            YR:”Q: Was She Wearing A Burqa?
            A: No, she wasn’t.

            She was wearing a niqab”

            Wow. And the significance of what her outfit is called vindicates your position? My my … what’s in a name. But no matter what name you give her outfit, she still looks the same in it. Just take a look at her picture, you fool!

            YR:”and it is a fact that the combination of niqab + jeans + sneakers is so commonplace that it should elicit no “suspicion” from anyone”

            Shouldn’t it? I beg to differ in the context of what happened and where it hapoened, most westerners would be on alert.

            YR:”Odd, isn’t it?”

            What’s odd dude? Are you odd? I’d say you are.

            YR:”The theory was put forward with a Great Big Florish, but when it is pointed out that its fundamental conceit is factually incorrect then that fatal flaw is simply…. ignored.”

            Wasn’t put forward in a flourish just in an off handed way to demonstrate your stupidity, as an alternate possibility. Me, I am prepared to wait to the outcome of the investigations. But I responded to your juvenile challenge about coming up with alternative explanations. But now you object? Ok, typical YR. arguing for the sake of hearing himself. What a loser.

            YR:”Quite bizarre.”

            Bizarre? Look in the mirror dude, you will have bizarre staring back at you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me: “Indeed, the theory claims that combining western wear with a burqa is *so* suspicious that it must have been deliberately chosen to elicit fear and suspicion”

            Gustav (now): “Nope, that is YOUR theory. The soldiers initially didn’t even see what she had under her clothing.”

            Err, no, that is very definitely YOUR theory, I was merely (and accurately) paraphrasing it.

            Here, let me help you recall your own words……

            Gustav: (then): “The woman was wearing a burqa, head to toe. Yet she was a uni student. Aaaaaaand… she wore jeans and sneakers under the burqa. Why? … coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.”

            So sorry, Gustav, but you don’t get to take that comment back.

            And, again, so sorry, Gustav, but my comment is indeed an accurate paraphrasing of your earlier comment.

            I have to admit that I’m getting quite concerned for your sanity, Gustav.

            Are you really losing the thread to such an extent that you can’t even remember what you wrote less than 24 hours ago?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:”coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.”

            YR:”So sorry, Gustav, but you don’t get to take that comment back.”

            LOL, now why would you think I want to take that back?

            Your compartmentalized literal mind was thinking I meant her jeans and sneakers. It could not conceive of what was implied. Knives, bombs or guns.

            But her jeans and sneakers had significance too. And the fact that she was a westernized university student. Yet she wore a burqa. Yes a burqa just because you don’t like me calling it that.

            The significance of that was that she acted out of character so she was up to something. We know that with the benefit of hindsight. Of course the soldiers knew only what they saw at the time. A woman dressed in strange clothing, a burqa, which could easily be used to conceal weapons, acting suspiciously.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “LOL, now why would you think I want to take that back?”

            *sigh*

            I’ll go through this one more time….

            You said this: “And here is the clincher YR. The woman was wearing a burqa, head to toe. Yet she was a uni student. Aaaaaaand… she wore jeans and sneakers under the burqa. Why? … coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.”

            I paraphrased THOSE words thus: “Indeed, the theory claims that combining western wear with a burqa is *so* suspicious that it must have been deliberately chosen to elicit fear and suspicion”

            YOU then claimed that this was MY theory.

            Now, so very sorry, I want you to explain to me how MY paraphrasing is in any way an inaccurate description of YOUR original theory.

            Because if you can’t point out an inaccuracy in my paraphrasing – and I’m saying now that you can’t – then you need to retract your claim that this was MY theory not YOUR theory.

            Gustav: “Your compartmentalized literal mind was thinking I meant her jeans and sneakers.”

            No, that’s Gustav’s attempt at a Red Herring.

            The two paragraphs are up there, Gustav, one above the other.

            You need to point out exactly how MY words are in any way an inaccurate paraphrasing of YOUR words, and I’m saying once again that you can’t.

            Gustav: “It could not conceive of what was implied. Knives, bombs or guns.”

            No, that’s just another Red Herring.

            YOU said something.
            I paraphrased what YOU said.

            Were MY words an accurate paraphrasing of YOUR words?
            Yes? Or No? And if your answer is No then where is the inaccuracy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Aaaaaaaaannnddd, the man is still arguing. Tell me YR, are you demented? Aaaaaaaggggain…this is what I said in full context…

            GUSTAV:”The woman was wearing a burqa, head to toe. Yet she was a uni student. Aaaaaaand… she wore jeans and sneakers under the burqa. Why? …

            …coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.

            She was a modern woman yet she dressed out of character and acted suspiciously. Voila, there you have it…”

            …even if for the sake of argument if one wants to misunderstand what was my meaning (which bit of “head to toe” does YR misunderstand? How could the soldiers know what was under a garment which was worn head to toe? But in any case, I clarified what I meant now a number of times. But really, there was no reason for misunderstanding it. I said two things…

            1. The woman had the type of clothing which would allow her to conceal weapons. Coupled to her behavior, that fact spooked the guards.

            2. As it turned out, she was a westernized woman who dressed out of character. That suggests that she was up to something.

            But YR wants to keep on arguing about it. So, argue my little man. Go ahead and argue. I am here to please. I will argue with you too…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “It seems you are too rattled and confused to THINK clearly, are you not, donkey-head?”

            No, actually, I’m still quite comfortable in my position, thanks all the same.

            Indeed, this is fun: Gustav has now put forward two “theories”, and I have shown that both are demonstrably wrong.

            His first theory is that the girl “dropped the knife” once she realised the seriousness of her situation.

            That theory is incorrect, precisely because there is a photo at the Daily Mail that shows the spot where that knife would later magically appear, and:
            a) There is no knife lying there, and
            b) Hashlamon was at least 3m away, and separated from it by both a metal gate and two trigger-happy IDF soldiers.

            That is a fact.

            Which means that whoever *did* subsequently drop a knife in that sport wasn’t Hashlamon – she was too far away and had two insurmountable obstacles in her path.

            Gustav’s second theory was that Hashlamon wore the combination of a Burqa with jeans and sneakers, and that is SUCH a suspicious combination that it MUST have been deliberately chosen to elicit alarm from those IDF soldiers.

            Except Gustav is wrong: she wasn’t wearing a Burqa, she was wearing a Niqab.

            That is a fact.

            Which means that Hashlamon couldn’t possibly have chosen her clothing with the deliberate intention of alarming those two IDF soldiers, precisely because there is nothing the least bit unusual nor suspicious in wearing a niqab over western clothing.

            Now I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this but, apparently, I do.

            Neither you nor Gustav are proving anything by producing fanciful theories IF those theories are contradicted by the available evidence.

            All THAT proves is that neither of you are willing to let the facts get in the way of a good fairy-tale.

            Which, I suppose, is where we all came in in the first place: I’m interpreting the facts, and you two are concocting fairy-tales.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Part 2 of 2….

            YR:”Gustav’s second theory was that …”

            Spare us, either you are too dumb to understand what I said in my last three posts. Or you are posting coz ya just wanna post and argue, you boring little man.

            YR:”Except Gustav is wrong: she wasn’t wearing a Burqa, she was wearing a Niqab.”

            Ditto. Go read my last three posts. The only thing that is relevant is what she was wearing (hint – look at the picture). What you call that outfit is irrelevant.

            YR:”That is a fact.”

            Facts? Ya wouldn’t know what facts are if you fell over facts.

            YR:”Which means that Hashlamon couldn’t possibly have chosen her clothing with the deliberate intention of alarming those two IDF soldiers, precisely because there is nothing the least bit unusual nor suspicious in wearing a niqab over western clothing.”

            Go read what I said in my last three posts. You are raising so many straw men. Or even red herrings…

            YR:”Now I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this but, apparently, I do.”

            Coz ya enjoy reading what you write? There is a name for pathologics such as yours, YR, go read up on narcissism. You will undoubtedly recognize yourself.

            YR:Neither you nor Gustav are proving anything by producing fanciful theories IF those theories are contradicted by the available evidence.”

            Ya think so? Maybe you are right. But my theories are no more fanciful than yours. And I only presented them coz ya practically begged me to. Hey, I aim to please even the likes of you.

            YR:”All THAT proves is that neither of you are willing to let the facts get in the way of a good fairy-tale.”

            My fairy tale is no worse than your fairy tale YR. the only difference between us is that I am on the record of saying that I’d rather let the trained authorities investigate and present their conclusions. Now ya see what ya made me do? This is about the 5th time you made me repeat myself. You are a bad influence, YR.

            YR:”Which, I suppose, is where we all came in in the first place: I’m interpreting the facts, and you two are concocting fairy-tales.”

            As I said, YR, ya wouldn’t recognize facts even if you fell over them. And you made me repeat that too. Sigh, so be it. I am game if you are game

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav (now): “Ditto. Go read my last three posts. The only thing that is relevant is what she was wearing (hint – look at the picture). What you call that outfit is irrelevant.”

            Niiiiiiiice revisionism, Gustav.

            Here’s what you wrote:
            Gustav (then): “And here is the clincher YR. The woman was wearing a burqa, head to toe. Yet she was a uni student. Aaaaaaand… she wore jeans and sneakers under the burqa. Why? … coz she obviously wanted the soldiers to think she had something scary under her clothing.”

            You are, quite indisputably, claiming that this equation “explains” events:
            burqa + jeans + sneakers = scarily suspicious.

            And, heck, it may or may not be true that such is, indeed, a suspiciously odd combination of clothing.

            But really doesn’t matter either way, precisely because she wasn’t wearing a burqa.

            Her combination on that day was this:
            niqab + jeans + sneaker
            and anyone who isn’t an ignorant bigoted fool would know that that’s a perfectly unexceptional and very common combination of clothes, and therefore this must be true:
            donning that combination should neither “scare” nor elicit “suspicion” from anyone who isn’t an ignorant bigoted fool.

            QED: You are an ignorant, bigoted fool.

            Honestly, it really is that simple.
            And that honest.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”something scary under her clothing”

            Poor old YR. Ya went and thought that I meant her jeans and sneakers.

            What a chump. What ya didn’t thunk about was the obvious (to normal people) thing that I meant. Something like a conceiled weapon like a gun, a knife, a bomb. Her type of clothing could easily give her the opportunity to do so.

            This is about the fourth time I explained this in so many words yet this pathetic fool, YR, persists in arguing what her outfit is called. He is the only one who attaches any significance as to whether it is called a burqa or a niqab. Why? Coz he likes to argue.

            Fine, I will argue with ya, YR, coz I am a very patient man. Go ahead, argue some more…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            What is it about Straw Men that Gustav finds so attractive?

            Witness……

            Gustav: ” YR:”something scary under her clothing” ”

            Those words are, of course, Gustav’s. I never once used that phrase.

            But nevermind his curious ideas about quotations. Let’s continue….

            Gustav: “Poor old YR. Ya went and thought that I meant her jeans and sneakers.”

            And that’s when Gustav started erecting his Man Of Straw.

            It’s big, and it’s beautiful, and it’s stuffed full of straw-stuff.

            Gustav: “What a chump. What ya didn’t thunk about was the obvious (to normal people) thing that I meant.”

            And that, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing more than Gustav now arguing to his Straw Man **as** **if** he were talking to me.

            No, baby, I’m over here. You’re just talking to your own Straw Man.

            Gustav: “Something like a conceiled weapon like a gun, a knife, a bomb. Her type of clothing could easily give her the opportunity to do so.”

            *sigh*

            Let me interrupt Gustav in his argument with his Straw Man – mind if I butt in between you two? – and point out once again that the claim that Gustav just made is utterly ludicrous.

            Note that Hashlamon wasn’t *just* dressed in a thoroughly unexceptional combination, she was *also* toting a laptop bag.

            IF she had wanted to conceal a knife, or a gun, or a bomb then she could have concealed any of those items in that laptop bag.

            Which according to Gustav-logic (I know, I know) would make the choice of a laptop bag something unutterably scary, so much so that she must have deliberately chosen that laptop bag to deliberately stoke suspicion from those soldiers.

            Rather than, errr, she chose that bag in order to carry her stuff.
            Much like, errr, she chose wear niqab, jeans and sneakers because she didn’t want to walk around naked.

            There is absolutely no reason for an IDF soldier to leap to any conclusion that she chose her (quite unexceptional, did I mention that?) clothes in order to effect “concealment”, any more than there would be any reason for them to leap to the conclusion that she chose to pick up a (quite unexceptional) item like a laptop bag.

            She walked through a metal detector, and she set it off.
            The soldiers should then have acted like PROFESSIONALS, which would mean acting calmly and rationally as they went through the drill.

            Instead they panicked, leap to their feet and so threatened Hashlamon that she didn’t know what to do. Whereupon they shot her dead.

            Why do I get the sinking suspicious that had you been there you would have done exactly the same thing i.e. shit you pants, leap to your feet and pumped her full of lead. Then ask your buddies “anyone seen my knife? I got a use fer it”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh nooooo…. he is off again… YR and his famous “straw man” accusation….

            Back on topic though…

            Which bit of “head to toe” outfit didn’t you understand? That was part of what I said. And I don’t recall accusing the poor woman of wearing transparent clothing…

            Sooooo which bit of the rest can’t a mature grown up man can’t work out for gimself? That I couldn’t have possibly meant what our donkey head YR thinks I said.

            Psssst, YR, if the clothing is from head to toe and the clothing ain’t transparent then the soldiers couldn’t have seen what is underneath her clothing so they became nervous about other things she may have had there. For instance the knife she produced.

            Moreover, in hindsight. Now that we know that the woman was a westernized university student, what was she up to wearing that traditional garb? It is a fair bet that she was up to no good and the soldiers claims about her hit the nail on the head.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Oh nooooo…. he is off again… YR and his famous “straw man” accusation….”

            *sigh*

            You erect a straw man, and then start arguing with it.
            I point out that you are arguing with your own straw man.
            Gustav then “criticizes” me because I know a straw man when I see one.

            Or, put another way: Gustav uses the Straw Man Argument all the time, and is too stupid to even know it.

            Gustav: “Back on topic though…”

            Oh, please, let’s do.

            YOU argued that wearing a burga over the top of jeans and sneakers is soooooo unusual a combination that choosing it must have been a deliberate attempt by Hashlomon to “scare” the IDF soldiers into shooting her.

            That is, indeed, what you said. Do you really want me to quote you again saying exactly that?

            You are wrong. Hashlamon wore a niqab over her jeans and sneakers, and that is a thoroughly unexceptional – indeed, common – choice of dress. So common that wearing it should elicit no additional “suspicion” from anyone – let alone lead to them becoming “scared” – when she set off that metal detector.

            Indeed, I (and anyone who isn’t an ill-trained, over-armed, trigger-happy bigot) would take it as far, far more likely that the item that set off that metal detector was inside that laptop bag.

            You know, something like….. a laptop.

            Gustav: “Which bit of “head to toe” outfit didn’t you understand?”

            Well, for one thing, the bit about claiming that a niqab is a “head to toe outfit”, which it most definitely is not. It is a head to waist outfit, which you can clearly see if you had the wit to look and learn. But, alas, that is asking way too much.

            Regardless, you now appear to be tying yourself up in logic-knots.

            You are very clearly on record (do I *have* to quote you again?) as stating that Hashlamon would surely know that the IDF soldiers would become suspicious (indeed, “scared”) when they saw someone wearing a “burqa over jeans and sneakers”, yet now you are claiming that she was wearing an outfit that reaches from “head to toe”.

            You can’t see the inherent self-contradiction in those two arguments, can you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Well, for one thing, the bit about claiming that a niqab is a “head to toe outfit”, which it most definitely is not. It is a head to waist outfit”

            Up to now, our YR just acted stupid. Now he is resorted to lying (what a surprise, he has been caught lying before). He now denies that the woman wore an outfit which covered her head to toe. And he claims that I said she wore a niquab.

            Are you there, old buddy? Yes, you YR, look at the link below. It clearly verifies my claim not yours.

            pictures of hebron woman who was shot dead

            Click on that link.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Really, this is getting pathetic. For Gustav.

            Note this bit….
            Gustav: “Psssst, YR, if the clothing is from head to toe and the clothing ain’t transparent then the soldiers couldn’t have seen what is underneath her clothing so they became nervous about other things she may have had there.”

            The niqab covers the head to the waist. She was wearing jeans underneath a black skirt, and sneakers on her feet. That’s you “head to toe” clothing.

            She could also, of course, have worn a hat, a scarf, and a pants-suit, and those soldiers would have been equally “unable to see” what was underneath those clothes.

            You appear to be suggesting that IDF soldiers should “become nervous” merely because they can’t see what’s underneath a woman’s clothes.

            Dare I suggest that you don’t have a particularly firm grasp of one of the principle purpose of “clothing”?

            Gustav: “For instance the knife she produced.”

            That would be the knife that you insist she “dropped”, even though photos show her to be at least 3m away from the “drop point”, correct?

            The knife that wasn’t there when photos show she had ALREADY moved behind a very stout metal gate, correct?

            That knife?

            You do appear to be struggling with a cogent response to that Rather Inconvenient Fact i.e. there is a photo showing that she was:
            a) 3m away, and
            b) behind an insurmountable metal gate, and
            c) had two armed and trigger-happy soldiers
            between *her* and where *you* claimed she dropped the knife.

            I know that BigCat has struggled – however feebly – to explain that away.

            But you? You just pretend that this inconvenient photo doesn’t exist.

            Odd, really….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Tell me YR, are you brain dead? Coz your comprehension is non existent. Here is what I said only two posts ago…

            GUSTAV:” …even if for the sake of argument if one wants to misunderstand what was my meaning (which bit of “head to toe” does YR misunderstand? How could the soldiers know what was under a garment which was worn head to toe? But in any case, I clarified what I meant now a number of times. But really, there was no reason for misunderstanding it. I said two things…

            1. The woman had the type of clothing which would allow her to conceal weapons. Coupled to her behavior, that fact spooked the guards.

            2. As it turned out, she was a westernized woman who dressed out of character. That suggests that she was up to something.”

            Do tell us again which bit of it is unclear to you. It seems to me that you don’t get any of it even though normal people would have no problems comprehending it.

            I eagerly await your next nonsensical reply.

            Luv
            Gustav

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            It isn’t that hard old buddy. The girl wore clothing which coverd her head to toe. Anyone can look at the picture and see for themselves. If you deny that fact then you are either delusional or just a plain liar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old YR, he is still trying so hard to be right pity he is short on substance. Here is the information he is steadfastly avoiding from supplying…

            1. A link to the pictures that he is referring to.

            2. Who took those pictures.

            3. Who makes the claim about what happened in each picture.

            4. The sequence of the pictures.

            5. What other pictures are there?

            6. Who may have photoshopped what pictures?

            I could go on… none of YR’s claims would stand a chance in any decent court of law as opposed to the kind of kangaroo court which our biased little YR is trying to run.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I already addressed this bit of crap of YR’s. I asked him to produce links to the pictures which he claims prove his allegation. I also asked him to own up as to who took those pictures and I asked him a few other pertinent questions about it too. But alas, YR did not respond. Yet he smugly pretends that his case is proven so let me show that it isn’t.

            YR:”That would be the knife that you insist she “dropped”, even though photos show her to be at least 3m away from the “drop point”, correct?”

            Yes, that would be the knife which she dropped when she was near that point. The fact that afterwards she was 3m away is not relevant.

            YR:”The knife that wasn’t there when photos show she had ALREADY moved behind a very stout metal gate, correct?”

            No photo that I am aware of shows that. It is only YOUR allegation.

            YR:”That knife?”

            But even if it would be that knife, as per your allegation, even then, we need assurance that the photos were not doctored. Know what I mean YR?

            Ya know, YR? In a real court of law, when the prosecution produces damning evidence, the defence insists on authenticating such evidence as genuine. Only in the kangaroo courts which YOU advocate is that authentication unnecessary.

            YR:”You do appear to be struggling with a cogent response to that Rather Inconvenient Fact i.e. there is a photo showing that she was:…”

            Correction, YR, I struggle to take you seriously since you did not bother answering my questions which challanged your premature conclusions.

            YR:”a) 3m away, and”

            My contention is that she was there. She dropped the knife, then she moved 3m away.

            YR:”b) behind an insurmountable metal gate, and”

            See above.

            YR:”c) had two armed and trigger-happy soldiers
            between *her* and where *you* claimed she dropped the knife.”

            See above.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The picture which I produced to prove that the woman was behind the metal barrier shows that there was no knife next to the tin box at that time. This is in line with YR’s claim.

            But what is not clear is when was this picture taken? Contrary to YR’s claim, it does not contradict the soldiers claim about the knife because this picture may have been taken BEFORE the woman crossed the metal barrier and the knife has not been dropped yet.

            But even if I am wrong, even then there are questions to ask. Look at the later picture with the knife next to the tin box. Compare it to the position of the tin box in the earlier picture (with the woman behind the barrier). It is obvious that the tin box is not in the same position. And since the tin box is the marker for the knife (the knife is shown next to it) the earlier picture proves nothing. The fact that the knife is not seen next to the box at that time does not prove that the knife was not there at a position outside the scope of that picture. All it proves is that the tin box was moved later and positioned next to the knife and then the picture of the knife next to the tin box was taken.

            And that, folks, demonstrates the shaky grounds on which our boastful YR is treading. His claims are worthless and are easily challanged. And that is exactly how it would work in a proper court of law. But of course our kangaroo court minded YR is too stupid to understand that.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Average American

      I hadn’t seen this picture before. I think it is very important, admirable, that the soldier on the right is still at this point apparently keeping his head, telling his teammate to hold off. I haven’t had the stomach to watch the Daily News video of the shooting beyond this point, I don’t know which of them shot her or if they both did, but it’s clear they lost their heads. Over what. What a shame.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        “Ben” alias “AverageAmerican” alias “ViktorArias” alias “MuslimJew” alias “RichardFlantz” alias “Bluto” alias etc. is at it again with his multiple identities. Such is the nature of the foreign supporters of the “Palestinians”: psychopathic, hateful, etc.

        Oh dear …. Get a life, Ben!

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          To BigCat: 1) I think for myself and don’t use other names. 2) Do you consider the woman who was killed a human being?

          Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Yeah, you speak for yourself with multiple identities that represent your multiple psychotic personalities. No kidding. All you have to do is quit doing that, not playing dumb.

            1) YOU “Ben”, while posing as “AverageAmerican”, “ViktorArajs” and “MuslimJew”, has posted numerous raw and deranged anti-Semitic slurs and rants ON THIS site. If you deny, I will produce evidence of the racist and anti-Semitic statements posted by “AverageAmerican” on this site, but I am sure you don’t want us to go there, do you? Why do you pretend to care about “human beings” and human rights when YOU in fact are a racist anti-Semite?

            2) Now, you ask me if I “consider the woman that was killed a human being?” I will gladly answer if you do the following for me: go pull a knife on the cops in the United States where you claim you come from. Come back to be me – if you survive that adventure – and I will answer your question. Deal?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Come back to me – if you survive that adventure – and I will answer your question.” ….was meant.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            BigCat: You can believe who I am or not, I don’t care. “Don’t want us to go there”? Who is “us”? What makes you one of “us”? Is there a “them” and who are they?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Why don’t you answer BigCat’s question, Average?

            What do you think would happen to you if you pull a knife on American cops and refuse to surrender?

            Do you think you would survive? Yes? Or no? Average? It isn’t a hard question for anyone honest.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Gustav: You can give me your own answers to my questions if you want (I don’t have any from BigCat yet).
            BigCat: Do you feel like you are as certain of your facts about me as you are of your facts about this article’s subject? Already you’ve created another identity for me, what have you created regarding the article?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Ben”, alias “AverageAmerican” alias “Viktor Arajs” alias “MuslimJew” alias “Been There”, alias etc., of course you do care, sick-o. And if you don’t care, why are you responding? What is it that makes you nervous and worried, Ben, that you feel the urge to respond with your usual gibberish? Just be a man, you psychotic coward, and quit using multiple aliases. Your use of multiple identities is a symptom of much more serious psychiatric problems, very problematic past that might include criminal record and a difficult, disorganized and empty present. I can guarantee that you use stolen e-mail addresses to engage in your fraudulent behavior. You are a psychopath, Ben. You are a very sick man. Seek professional help, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            BigCat: Wow. I was unprepared for your response. You give the impression that you don’t want to talk about this article anymore (because you aren’t). Maybe this article is played out for you. I think there will be more said about the event, perhaps in another article.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Knock off your idiocy, Ben. My position on this article is well know. You are not blind, are you? Surely you can read English, can’t you? Well then, look up-thread, moron, and you can read all about it there – and challenge me there if you have the courage!

            You asked me if I “consider the woman who was shot a human being?”. To that I replied: “1) YOU “Ben”, while posing as “AverageAmerican”, “ViktorArajs” and “MuslimJew”, has posted numerous raw and deranged anti-Semitic slurs and rants ON THIS site. (If you deny, I will produce evidence of the racist and anti-Semitic statements posted by “AverageAmerican” on this site, but I am sure you don’t want us to go there, do you?.”

            QUESTION

            “Why do you pretend to care about “human beings” and human rights when YOU in fact are a racist anti-Semite?”

            Pls. answer ONLY that question. Let’s talk about the article, shall we? We will take it one by one, step by step and discuss everything you want discussed. Meanwhile, answer the question above.

            We are waiting……..

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            BigCat: Who is “we”? What is this group you belong to?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Ben alias AverageAmerican alias etc. the more you dodge answering the very simple question put to you above and instead desperately try to wiggle out of it with your idiocy: (“who is we?”), the more it is obvious why. YOU make my case for me. Your silence speaks volumes, dimwit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav: You can give me your own answers to my questions if you want (I don’t have any from BigCat yet).”

            Actually you do. People who pull knives on police or armed soldiers are candidates for the Darwin awards even in peaceful countries let alone in a war torn country.

            And we, BigCat and I have your answer too, Average. You refuse to answer coz you agree with us. Gracias.

            Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        YR:”something scary under her clothing”

        Poor old YR. Ya went and thought that I meant her jeans and sneakers.

        What a chump. What ya didn’t thunk about was the obvious (to normal people) thing that I meant. Something like a conceiled weapon like a gun, a knife, a bomb. Her type of clothing could easily give her the opportunity to do so.

        This is about the fourth time I explained this in so many words yet this pathetic fool, YR, persists in arguing what her outfit is called. He is the only one who attaches any significance as to whether it is called a burqa or a niqab. Why? Coz he likes to argue.

        Fine, I will argue with ya, YR, coz I am a very patient man. Go ahead, argue some more…

        Reply to Comment
    5. Ben

      Where’s the video footage? Day # 8 that the IDF refuses to produce their video footage.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        BEN:”Where’s the video footage? Day # 8 that the IDF refuses to produce their video footage.”

        …right on que. YR’s little poodle shows up… where is the video? Where is the video? He shrieks….

        …down boy… who the F do you think you are? Are you a federal investigator? Why should we give you a video? The grown ups are looking at it as we speak. As for you… go get your own video about incidents in YOUR country… go pester your own adults for a video. We have our own fools to feed here. We don’t need puppies like you to yelp and jump up and fown around us acting as if it is our duty to supply you with your video games …LOL.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Oh hey you must be confused. This is +972 magazine, schnauzer. I belong here at least as much as you do. You occupying +972 magazine now too? Do I need to pass through checkpoints and be humiliated so you feel good? That’s what you and your rottweiler Grosskatze seem to feel entitled to. Are you now Lords of +972 too? +972 magazine is not “your country.” The video is neither “yours” nor “mine.” It’s the IDF’s. You are not the IDF. Etc. You’re disoriented. Not releasing the video will tell us all we need to know. We won’t need instructions from you. Thanks.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Benny, +972 is a country now. And we occupy it. Sure, Benny, sure…. I think you need to take your medications again.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Ben

      Where’s the footage? Day # 9 that the IDF refuses to produce it.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Benny is still whining for his video game. Go ask your daddy, Benny dear.

        Reply to Comment
    7. Ben

      Day # 10, no footage…

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        How come an old dude like you keep acting like a 6yr old kid? What kind of a dimwit are you, Ben?

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        You didn’t say please Benny.

        Why would we give hateful idiots like you anything? Ever?!!!

        Go get your own footage Benny about what happens in your country.

        Reply to Comment
    8. Average American

      BigCat: This is a ridiculous conversation. You haven’t answered one of my questions, but you chastise me for not answering yours. Because you think it means something really important (aha!) for me not to answer you, but you think it’s totally ok for you not to answer me. Because you’re you and I’m just me. Or your question is more important since it’s yours. In fact it’s not a conversation at all, it’s you talking about me to the “us” and the “we”. I won’t play subjugant for you. You don’t have your facts straight about me, and you don’t have your facts straight about the whole story (nor does anyone in the public) of what really happened. I meant it when I said maybe this article is played out for you. I read your earlier posts, and I can see you now have nothing left of substance to say on this one. This subject will come up again. I’m moving on to another article.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        “Ben”, alias “AverageAmerican” alias “Viktor Arajs” alias “MuslimJew” alias “Been There”, alias etc., you are confused again, aren’t you? In case you missed the question, I will put it again to you. Here you go:

        You asked me if I “consider the woman who was shot a human being?”. To that I replied: “1) YOU “Ben”, while posing as “AverageAmerican”, “ViktorArajs” and “MuslimJew”, has posted numerous raw and deranged anti-Semitic slurs and rants ON THIS site. (If you deny, I will produce evidence of the racist and anti-Semitic statements posted by “AverageAmerican” on this site, but I am sure you don’t want us to go there, do you?.”

        QUESTION

        “Why do you pretend to care about “human beings” and human rights when YOU in fact are a racist anti-Semite?”

        Pls. answer ONLY that question, or knock off your idiotic gibberish, you psychotic moron!

        Reply to Comment
    9. Ben

      Day # 12, still no footage…

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        While your own country burns, you are obsessed with Jews and Israel.

        Go find a job.

        Get a life, moron!

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          America is your country too, GrossKatze. And here you are, obsessed with me. Whose country is burning now, GrossKatze? Have you looked at the news from Jerusalem and the West Bank?

          Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Yea, Benny, go get your footage from Oregon. Day 1 and we don’t even have the name of the perpetrator. How can we be sure he wasn’t another Jihadi? After all he was targeting Christians. Why don’t you whine about that, Benny? You say you are American? Well are ya? Actually come to think of it, judging by your obsessive behavior you might be an Arab impersonating an American. Oh yea, what was it you said about Americans a while back, as Brian? You implied that all Americans are idiots. An Arab could easily feel that way… food for thought…

        Reply to Comment
    10. Ben

      Day # 16, no footage yet from the IDF. Footage that the IDF has in its possession of the killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamon.

      Day # 68 that the Dawabshe family murderers have not been brought to justice.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        Still no job, “Ben” alias “Viktor Arajs” alias etc? Still depending on food-stamps to survive, while fixating on- and obsessing about Jews EVERY SINGLE DAY – instead of finding a job? You really are psychotic, are you not?!

        Every DAY hundreds of Arabs are either blown to bits or shot by their fellow Arabs. Do YOU care about Arab lives? Of course Not – except when Jews are to blame?

        Several Jewish folks have been stabbed and killed by thugs like Hashlamon. You do not condemn their murders, but instead weep that their murderers get killed in their quest to kill Jews. Here is the recent example: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/201528#.VhUOW-ztmko

        In the country you claim to come from, the US, more than 30.000. people are shot and killed EACH YEAR by their fellow citizens. Do the math and tell us how many are killed EACH DAY! Do you care about YOUR OWN COUNTRY? No, heck, you don’t even know that’s what is happening! Why? Because YOU are a compulsive, obsessive anti-Semitic psychopath, Brian alias “Ben” alias “AverageAmerican” alias “Viktor Arajs” alias “MuslimJew” alias etc. For you it is not about human rights, its all about your obsession with Jews.

        Get a life, you psychotic moron!

        Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter