Israeli Soldiers Shoot 15 year old in the face with rubber coated steel bullet

[TomClash]

http://palsolidarity.org/2012/03/nabi-saleh-israeli-soldiers-shoot-15-year-old-in-the-face-with-rubber-bullet/


by Jonathan Pollack

23 March 2012 | Popular Struggle Coordination Committee


15 year-old Ez Tamimi minutes after being shot in the face. Picture credit: ActiveStills

The bullet shot from a short distance hit the boy in the face penetrating his right cheek and piercing it. 

Israeli Border Police officers shot a rubber-coated bullet at 15 year-old Ezz Tamimi’s face from a distance of about 20 meters, during the weekly demonstration in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh today. The bullet, which hit the boy’s cheek, went through it, gouging a large hole in it. The Israeli army’s own open-fire regulations forbid the use of rubber-coated bullets

The incident took place at the center of the village ,hundreds of meters away from where a demonstration was taking place, when Border Police officers invaded the village.

For the first time in months, protesters managed to reach the vicinity of the contested water spring, which sparked village demonstrations over two years ago when taken over by settlers. The protesters, mainly women from the village, managed to confound the soldiers by advancing towards the spring from an unexpected direction. The protesters who were held back by the soldiers meters away from the fountain proceeded to block the road leading to the adjacent Jewish-only settlement of Halamish for some 20 minutes.

The previous night, the Israeli army staged another nighttime raid on the village, an what has become an almost nightly practice in the past three weeks.

[holdencaufield]

1. So -- just to get things straight

Quoting an blog from Townhall.Com gets hidden

Quoting a "story" from the ISM blog is OK?

A story, by the way, that doesn't appear to have been picked up by any legitimate news agency on the planet.

[oberliner]

2. Is the ISM website a legit source here?

I know it wasn't at the previous incarnation. It's now OK for OP's?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Why shouldn't it be? Sources like 'honestreporting' are allowed n/t

[oberliner]

17. Neither should be

They are both partisan - neither are news sites.

[TomClash]

3. Time to apologize

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=263153

[azurnoir]

4. perhaps you could add the JPost link to your OP

it would add 'gravitas' to the story

[Scurrilous]

5. You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[oberliner]

6. Your apology is accepted

It's a courtesy to avoid posting OP's from sites like the ISM - as that violates the old I/P rules.

Stick to legit news sources in the future.

[azurnoir]

7. you weren't the one being addressed the comment was in reply to #1 that denied the story entirely

do you feel that you are owed an apology because you don't like the source for the story? Does the JPost link meet with approval?

[oberliner]

8. Seemed like a general apology to the board

Realizing the poster broke the rules of our past incarnation, the poster replaced the original link with one from an actual news source.

I for one appreciated the contrition.

[azurnoir]

9. except it was not contrition on the part of the poster of comment #3

it was a request for an apology from comment #1

[Kurska]

10. Why would the first post apologize?

He pointed out a legitimate instance of rule breaking then made a tentative comment

"A story, by the way, that doesn't appear to have been picked up by any legitimate news agency on the planet."

He was wrong in his second tentative point, but correct in his first. What should be apologize for?

[azurnoir]

11. well I guess appearances can be decieving can't they?

and thanks for answering a days old post the thread had sunk you helped to kick it back up

[Kurska]

12. I was curious about your thinking.

Why is merely being tentatively wrong something you should apologize for? Honestly this forum is so gotcha with the facts sometimes I'm amazed that anyone can communicate anything.

You could have just as easily not responded and let it sink again. Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to respond.

[azurnoir]

13. well hopefully you curiosity was satisfied

and my comments were in reply to a poster who claimed that post #3 was in fact something other than what it was
as to the complaints about a thread being hidden , I'd be willing to wager the lurid if not rather bigoted title had as much to do with the jury decision to hide the thread as its source


BTW I am replying now as I see you were here a short time ago

[shaayecanaan]

14. A pity about the kid that got shot, by the way...(nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Just to help straighten things out...A 15 year old was shot in the face...

Or is the shooting of a Palestinian kid no big deal?