IDF source: shootings along fence can't be totally prevented

[Gimel]

A senior Israel Defense Forces source said on Tuesday that despite the fact that the IDF is considering implementing new open-fire orders along the separation fence, the military cannot guarantee that demonstrators will not be hurt.


The senior source was referring to an incident last week in which Israeli demonstrator Gil Na'amati was shot during an anti-separation fence protest near the West Bank village of Maskha.

A military source added that the IDF has no policy of injuring protesters and that troops will be instructed to use crowd dispersal equipment, but that the situation tends to be complex and therefore instances in which demonstrators may be hurt could be repeated.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/380028.html

[bluesoul]

1. Basically they're saying

that there will be indiscriminate killings...

[Gimel]

2. Crowd control

Or in this case demonstration control, has not resulted in deaths. There will be injuries, even if rubber bullets are used. It is putting the truth in the open. Demonstrators are putting themselves in danger.

[bluesoul]

3. Really?

No deaths while Palestinians demonstrating? Then what is that thread a bit below about the Palestinian teenager killed? :eyes:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

7. Please indicate

the thread that you mean. I'm not a perfect mind reader. I sometimes make mistakes.

[Forkboy]

4. Do you support what the police did

in Seattle or Genoa?Both times demonstrators were warned they might be putting themselves in danger.Do you believe a warning excuses the actions taken by both police units? They too put the truth "in the open".

[Gimel]

8. Demonstrators

I really don't support violent demonstrations at all.

[Forkboy]

9. So yes,you do support the police's actions in those situations

'nuff said.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Lack of support

For one side is not necessarily support for the other. You are putting words in someone's mouth.

[Gimel]

13. I do not

You have no right to claim that. You've said far too much.

[Forkboy]

14. You had a perfect chance to denounce the actions

yet instead turned the question around to "violent demonstrators" and completely ignored the question.

Save your outrage,I'm not buying it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Basically what they are saying

Is that the fence is a security area and you can't enter that area and put Israeli security at risk.

[Aidoneus]

10. actually, the opposite

Not so much "indiscriminate", but rather "we'll shoot anybody we damn well please".

In the end it's mere semantics, but I think mine is a more accurate translation. :shrug:

[methinks2]

12. What a load of hooey!!!

I was handling guns when I was twelve. Believe me when I tell you that they can control their arms if they wish to control their arms.
This is just a way of saying they'll whomever they please.