• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palestinian Journalist Fatally Shot While Covering Gaza Protest [W:13]

Jack Hays said:
In a credibility contest, an Israeli minister trumps a room full of Palestinian journalists. A stupid man acted foolishly and it cost him his life.
Click to expand...

An Israeli minister that just so happens to have form for making claims that he fails to back up. But it wouldn't matter if I were able to give a thousand examples of such behaviour because the simple truth is that you think Palestinians are " dishonest "
 
Jack Hays said:
First, I take no position on Murtaja's possible Hamas affiliation. It's not necessary information.
Click to expand...

It is relevant to the subject of the Israeli ministers appetite for making claims he, and thus far the IDF on two occasions, has failed to back up with any evidence.

He flew a drone and that got him killed.
Click to expand...

But no evidence to support that assertion has been forthcoming
 
oneworld2 said:
An Israeli minister that just so happens to have form for making claims that he fails to back up. But it wouldn't matter if I were able to give a thousand examples of such behaviour because the simple truth is that you think Palestinians are " dishonest "
Click to expand...

oneworld2 said:
It is relevant to the subject of the Israeli ministers appetite for making claims he, and thus far the IDF on two occasions, has failed to back up with any evidence.



But no evidence to support that assertion has been forthcoming
Click to expand...

Murtaja behaved stupidly and died as a result.
 
Apocalypse said:
Returned from where? What time out?
Click to expand...

From when I asked you did you have any evidence that Murtaja flew a drone when he was shot .

You never answered it and you certainly haven't provided any evidence

Reasonable people would support the IDF for defending a border as every nation has the right to do and thus defending the citizens of the state from the invasion of violent Islamic terrorists. There's every moral (and obviously legal) reason to shoot and kill people who on the order of a terror organization march on a border with a country that their territory is in a state of war with and try to break it, no one should feel sorry for their deaths as they don't deserve a shard of empathy the way innocent people do. Thus reasonable people would congratulate the IDF on doing their job and certainly not call for the violent ones to be left alone to their violent deeds without being stopped - there's nothing reasonable in such calls.
Click to expand...

You need to ramp up the alleged threat so as to try to justify the response. I fully understand

You try to make it sound like there was an army of hundreds of thousands of " terrorists " massing on the border minutes away from drowning out Israel and it's people and a desperate rearguard action just about saved the day.

Of course the reality was something completely different whereby the vast majority of protesters stayed well away from the fence and protested peacefully. A few went to the fence, damaged fencing and threw stones oh and the odd petrol bomb. But the hyperbole is required because so many Palestinians got shot and it became a PR problem justifying it

The drone-flying journalist was indeed flying a drone, I fully believe the IDF version as I'm familiar with its credibility.
Click to expand...

What " IDF version " is that ?

AFAIK it remains just Lieberman's claim with the IDF not, as yet , offering any evidence for it. Like when he said Hezbollah had fired rockets at Israel in the link I gave earlier. Any info stating the IDF has supported/submitted evidence to support the claim ?

Lest we forget you are the one accusing them of a crime here and the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.
Click to expand...

That's what Ive been saying right throughout the thread whilst you have repeatedly referred to the drone claim as some sort of absolute truth without having provided any evidence to back it I asked you for evidence around a 100 posts ago and you ducked it but continued to make the claim . Once again we are left with little doubt about the hypocrisy of your positions and your penchant for projection.

Since you can't prove such thing it's just yet more nonsensical arguments we have to cope with - far from reasonable.
Click to expand...

I am not the one constantly making unsubstantiated claims remember , you are , see above again

On what has been disclosed so far I see little to support the killing of Mr Murtaja as an act self defence even if he were to be found to operating a camera on a drone. For the hundredth time the law states that you have to present an imminent and mortal threat to the person that claims to have killed you in self defence. The distance, the fence in between the fact that nobody has claimed he was armed makes the credibility for the claim that he was killed in self defence highly unlikely
 
X Factor said:
Continuing to refer to people as murderers, man. I’d watch out if I were you. You could be sued and stuff.
Click to expand...

Just explaining the law that you can't seem to handle being applied.

Funny how you agree with laws and refer to them when it suits and then go all rabid if any dare to apply any to Israeli actions
 
oneworld2 said:
Just explaining the law that you can't seem to handle being applied.

Funny how you agree with laws and refer to them when it suits and then go all rabid if any dare to apply any to Israeli actions
Click to expand...

Just offering a neighborly warning. ;)

To prove murder, or any crime, you have to also disprove all the potential defenses and do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof never shifts to the defense. Your arguments are not evidence, and neither are articles on the internet. Those are pure hearsay based on statements made that were not under oath and subject to cross exam. Nobody has proven anything in this thread because nobody has actual access to any evidence that would be admitted in a court of law, so if you feel comfortable calling people murderers because you think murder has been proven, that's actually not the case at all.
 
X Factor said:
Just offering a neighborly warning. ;)

To prove murder, or any crime, you have to also disprove all the potential defenses and do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof never shifts to the defense. Your arguments are not evidence, and neither are articles on the internet. Those are pure hearsay based on statements made that were not under oath and subject to cross exam. Nobody has proven anything in this thread because nobody has actual access to any evidence that would be admitted in a court of law, so if you feel comfortable calling people murderers because you think murder has been proven, that's actually not the case at all.
Click to expand...


I agree nobody knows the full facts and I have stated an opinion based on what ive heard and read thus far. If evidence is forthcoming I can revise my opinion but what was going on here was a slurring of a dead man on a whole lot of , as yet , baseless claims

Listen , this whole escapade started by people throwing around unsubstantiated claims about Mr Murtaja in a bid to justify his killing by the IDF. I didn't recall you taking the same track against them that I did. Like asking for evidence and such , so why have you only decided to make this point to me ?

I'm big enough and ugly enough to handle it btw but the question still begs to be asked
 
oneworld2 said:
I agree nobody knows the full facts and I have stated an opinion based on what ive heard and read thus far. If evidence is forthcoming I can revise my opinion but what was going on here was a slurring of a dead man on a whole lot of , as yet , baseless claims

Listen , this whole escapade started by people throwing around unsubstantiated claims about Mr Murtaja in a bid to justify his killing by the IDF. I didn't recall you taking the same track against them that I did. Like asking for evidence and such , so why have you only decided to make this point to me ?

I'm big enough and ugly enough to handle it btw but the question still begs to be asked
Click to expand...

Because you and your side decided it was proven that Isreal committed murder and it hasn’t been. Your backpedal is noted considering you seemed so confident, maybe even a little smug before. :D Be honest, though, even if it could be firmly established the guy had ties to Hamas, would that make a single bit of difference to you? My sense it that you’d still argue it wasn’t his fault or that Hamas threatened him or that Isreal still didn’t need to shoot him.
 
Evilroddy said:
Jack Hays:

Prove your assertions or in the eyes of other reasonable and impartial posters here they are just that, assertions. Your presumption of affiliation is neither evidence nor proof of association, it is speculation. Your presumption of drone operation is unproven too at this point and so is speculation as well. These claims may be your own opinion but are as yet still unsupported by citations or factual evidence provided by you or others here. I have provided evidence for the claims which I have made in this thread, you have not done this in this thread to date as far as I can see. That is why you are being criticised by others - for your sloppy methodology in wilfully making an unsubstantiated case and refusing others' request for evidence to back up your claims. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts based on your opinions.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You’ve provided hearsay and opinion. You have no actual evidence so continuing to call people murderers doesn’t seem like you’re being very careful about what you say despite telling me how careful we need to be. What you’re affirming repeatedly is that they’re guilty not just murder but capital murder, and that is a significant accusation that has been far from actually proven.
 
X Factor said:
You’ve provided hearsay and opinion. You have no actual evidence so continuing to call people murderers doesn’t seem like you’re being very careful about what you say despite telling me how careful we need to be. What you’re affirming repeatedly is that they’re guilty not just murder but capital murder, and that is a significant accusation that has been far from actually proven.
Click to expand...

X-Factor:

Please refer to my earlier post # 317 for an enumeration of the known facts at the time of its posting.

Your hyperbole concerning "capital murder" charges is your own. To the best of my knowledge no one on this thread other than you has brought that up. I won't speak for others but I have accused IDF spotters and snipers of targeting and killing Yaser Murtaja. I have also accused the Israeli state of pre-announcing its intention to target, wound and kill protesters and others by sniper fire with fully-lethal live ammunition.

As to the topsy-turvy claim that the burden of proof lies with the accusers and so Avigdor Lieberman's assertions about Mr. Murtaja must be taken as de facto truth and not questioned, that is absurd. Lieberman's claims were made in response to the killing of Murtaja as an attempt to justify a killing which many in the world's media were questioning the legitimacy of. By making the claims which he did, Lieberman basically admitted that agents of the Israeli state did target and kill Yaser Murtaja and offered three rationalisations for why he thought the killing was justified. Lieberman made assertions regarding Murtaja's associations and actions which neither he nor the wider Israeli state can or will offer evidence to prove to date. Thus Lieberman, after all but admitting that the Israeli state was the entity which killed Murtaja then attempted to introduce exculpatory reasons for excusing the killing as a legitimate act of defence. Thus the burden of proff falls on the party who presents the exculpatory claims to prove that their claims are rooted in truth. So your and Apocalypse's reasoning (from Apocalypse's post #398) are a distortion of the burden of proof argument unless and until the Israeli state provides proof for its exculpatory reasoning as voiced by Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman in the wake of the Murtaja shooting.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
X-Factor:

Please refer to my earlier post # 317 for an enumeration of the known facts at the time of its posting.

Your hyperbole concerning "capital murder" charges is your own. To the best of my knowledge no one on this thread other than you has brought that up. I won't speak for others but I have accused IDF spotters and snipers of targeting and killing Yaser Murtaja. I have also accused the Israeli state of pre-announcing its intention to target, wound and kill protesters and others by sniper fire with fully-lethal live ammunition.

As to the topsy-turvy claim that the burden of proof lies with the accusers and so Avigdor Lieberman's assertions about Mr. Murtaja must be taken as de facto truth and not questioned, that is absurd. Lieberman's claims were made in response to the killing of Murtaja as an attempt to justify a killing which many in the world's media were questioning the legitimacy of. By making the claims which he did, Lieberman basically admitted that agents of the Israeli state did target and kill Yaser Murtaja and offered three rationalisations for why he thought the killing was justified. Lieberman made assertions regarding Murtaja's associations and actions which neither he nor the wider Israeli state can or will offer evidence to prove to date. Thus Lieberman, after all but admitting that the Israeli state was the entity which killed Murtaja then attempted to introduce exculpatory reasons for excusing the killing as a legitimate act of defence. Thus the burden of proff falls on the party who presents the exculpatory claims to prove that their claims are rooted in truth. So your and Apocalypse's reasoning (from Apocalypse's post #398) are a distortion of the burden of proof argument unless and until the Israeli state provides proof for its exculpatory reasoning as voiced by Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman in the wake of the Murtaja shooting.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Uhm “murdering” 37 people or however many you say the Israelis murdered is capital murder. You have repeatedly said Israelis are guilty of murder and characterized the shooting as murder. Surely you’re not denying that. I mean, it’s written down here. Do I need to refresh your recollection? Your confidence in your pronouncement of guilt seems to be oddly waning. This is generally what happens though when you choose a term fully intended to inflame and vilify. But hey, if you’re sure you’ve proven murder, stick to your guns (pun intended).

There is not a thing, at all, topsy turvy about saying the accuser, especially of a crime, and indeed the most serious crime bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused does not have any burden at all to prove they’re innocent. This is all actually pretty fundamental to our system of justice, how can you not know that?
 
X Factor said:
Uhm “murdering” 37 people or however many you say the Israelis murdered is capital murder. You have repeatedly said Israelis are guilty of murder and characterized the shooting as murder. Surely you’re not denying that. I mean, it’s written down here. Do I need to refresh your recollection? Your confidence in your pronouncement of guilt seems to be oddly waning. This is generally what happens though when you choose a term fully intended to inflame and vilify. But hey, if you’re sure you’ve proven murder, stick to your guns (pun intended).

There is not a thing, at all, topsy turvy about saying the accuser, especially of a crime, and indeed the most serious crime bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused does not have any burden at all to prove they’re innocent. This is all actually pretty fundamental to our system of justice, how can you not know that?
Click to expand...

X-Factor:

I have not used the word "murder" in this thread at all except in response to your use of the term, precisely because it is an inflamatory term until a court has made a ruling. I have used the word "killing" repeatedly and once used the word "homicide" IIRC, which are both terms which accurately describe IDF and Israeli state actions in response to the Great March of Return protests since March 30th. So your claim of my use and repeated use of the word "murder" is baseless and you ought to go back and reread the thread, since you are misquoting me and misrepresenting what I have said. Yes, I will take you up on your suggestion and ask you to refresh my recollection about where I used the word "murder" except in response to your use of it first, in order to rebut your claims. If it's written down here as you say, then show it by quoting me please.

My pronouncements have always been about the actions and not about the guilt of the IDF, as guilt is a determination which can only be made by a court of law. The Israeli military and state did announce their intention to use lethal force against targeted protesters who they deemed to be agitators and instigators ahead of the protests, they did deploy spotter/sniper teams along the Gaza-Israeli frontier in order to carry out that threat, they did kill 37 or more people in Gaza since March 30th through sniper and vehicle fire, they did wound many hundreds more people and they did shoot and kill Yaser Murtaja as well as wounding four or five other journalists on that same day.

Avigdor Lieberman accused Yaser Murtaja of being a militant, an officer in Hamas and of flying a drone on the day of his death. He is the accuser and therefore the burden of proof is on Lieberman and the state of Israel, for whom he is an appointed agent, to prove the accusations made by the Israeli defence minister against Mr. Murtaja. To date no evidence or proof has been provided by the state of Israel to back up Lieberman's claims. There is witness testimony that on the day of his death Murtaja was using a hand-held, steady-cam video camera as described in an earlier post and was not flying or operating a drone at all. So until proof can be presented to the contrary of that witness testimony, Lieberman's claims are baseless.

There is no reasonable doubt that Israeli snipers killed and wounded protesters during the protests as the Israeli military and government have admitted to doing so. So there is no burden of proof necessary to prove that the IDF and Israeli security forces did the killing and the wounding by gun fire of the protesters along the frontier.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Bummer
Click to expand...

Bummer that he died or bummer that people who call themselves " pro Israeli " may have to try to justify it ? Just curious
 
oneworld2 said:
Bummer that he died or bummer that people who call themselves " pro Israeli " may have to try to justify it ? Just curious
Click to expand...

Israel has all the justification it needs so it must be the first one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom