</FONT><B><FONT FACE="Arial,helvetica" SIZE=4>

<P>DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON<BR>

SECTION: REMEMBERING THE DEAD<BR>

SUBSECTION: Muhammad al-Dura<BR>

Revised 1/8/01</B>

<P>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial,helvetica" SIZE=2>

<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2">

This Downside Legacy Freeper research project addresses the allegaton that the death of 12 yr old Muhammed al-Dura was staged as propaganda against Israel. A lot of Freeper analysis has been made available on the subject along with related soure information. Please review the following information and post your insight, observations and analysis.

<P>

From Arutz-7 Daily News 10/31/2000

<P>

"….An IDF investigation and re-enactment appears to show conclusively that the 12-year-old boy from Gaza, Muhammad al-Dura, was not shot by Israeli soldiers - but was rather the victim of a cruel plot staged by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a television cameraman. <P>

The incident in question occurred on Oct. 6, when the boy and his father happened to be walking past the scene of a major battle between Palestinian snipers and Israeli soldiers. Former IDF sniper Yosef Doriel, who initiated the re-enactment, said that he had several reasons to suspect that it was not the Israelis who shot the boy. "For one thing, the boy and his father were hiding behind and to the left of a barrel that was between them and the Israeli forces," he told Arutz-7 today. "In the video clip, you see four clean bullet holes to the side of them. These were not shot by the Israelis - they are 'clean' and full holes, not mere grazes that would have been formed by the 30-degree angle of the Israelis - but rather by Palestinians (stationed more directly in front of the father and son) to make sure that the two would stay put. Suddenly, you see the boy lying down in his father's lap, with another bullet hole in the wall directly behind him - again, it could not have come from the IDF position, which was behind the barrel and to the side, but only from the Palestinian position, which was more directly in front of the father and son. This is the bullet that went through his stomach and out of his back. At that point in the video, you can hear the firing - but the Israeli position was far away! Rather, what happened was that a Palestinian advanced to a spot very close to the photographer, and shot the fatal shot. You can also notice that at that moment of the fatal shots, the photographer suddenly 'shook' and the picture was blurred - a signal that the shots came from close to him." <P>

Doriel and a fellow physicist, Nachum Shachaf, proposed that O.C. Southern Command Yom Tov Samiyeh oversee a re-enactment of the entire incident, complete with the barrel and life-size dummies. Doriel concludes: "The Palestinian forces staged the event. The Israelis were firing, for sure - but the fatal shots came not from them, but from the Palestinian position in front of the boy, behind the cameraman." <P>

Freeper MHGinTN 10/31/00 <P>

The first time I watched the film I concluded the father looked toward the cameras because he sensed shots coming from that direction or caught sight of someone about to shoot at them! Yes, the murder was staged to appear like an Israeli killing, and yes, the PA considers the children sacrificed as acceptable. The father didn't expect the shooting, it is obvious fromn his expression! The Hezbollah and Hamas will sacrifice anyone and anything to obliterate Israel.

<P>

Freeper Trident/Delta 11/1/00<P>

I didn't save the original pics that showed the Father and son huddled down behind the barrel, but, if someone were to look at them and analyze the bullet holes in the wall behind them, you will see nice clean round holes. This indicates that the projectile hit the wall at a clean right angle. That is, it went straight into the wall. Additionally, examination will indicate that the bullet trail goes up and to the right. This indicates the probability of full-auto fire. In one of the final photos of the sequence, there is a bullet hole in the wall just above the boys calf. This indicates focused, aimed fire. Again the hole is clean, round and not eliptical. <P>

Inasmuch as the pictures demonstrate that the wall will in fact reveal penetrations, and, using the "Truth about Israel" website picture, you can see that from the Israeli position, the man and his son were at an angle of 30-40 degrees from the source of Israeli gunfire. Ballistically speaking, a high speed projectile (i.e. bullet) hitting a wall at an angle of 30 to 40 degrees should leave a elongated eliptical POI (Point of impact) This would show on photo's as a "smear". Given the 30-40 degree angle of attack to the wall, the "smear" should show an overall length of 6-8 inches and the penetration point(the hole, or "black" part of the photo) should show a 2-3 inch long eliptical hole. <P>

The length of the "smear" would be critical in forensically assigning the direction the bullet was traveling at the time of impact. Police labs have done this for many many years in determining where a shooter was positioned when shots were fired. The same technique is applied here. It is claimed that the Israelis fired the killing shots. This is not the case. examination of the photos, both as published and simply enhanced with Adobe Photo Editor shows that the rounds fired at the Father and son originated from the right and slightly to the rear of the Fathers position. The holes, are clean round and the "halo" around the actual hole in the wall is symetrical and even. From a forensics aspect, this clearly indicates straight on impacts. Using the larger scale photo as a guide, it would appear that the point of origin for the killing shots was from the grove of trees across the road. <P>

This is simple forensics. And, unlike passionate political beliefs, forensics don't lie. <P>

Semper Fi<P>

The picture from the IDF website at http://www.idf.il/english/news/boy.stm, the following copy same picture) is from a faster loading source:

<P>

<img src="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/english/newspaper/ondisplay/misc/other/06oct00/incident-english.jpg"><P>

<P>

From this website: http://themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html

<P>

A picture of the expression of the father and to see the direction he was looking and the bullet holes:

<P>

<img src="http://themodernreligion.com/jihad/pal4.jpg">

<P>

A picture after the fact and to see the bullet holes:

<P>

<img src="http://themodernreligion.com/jihad/pal7.jpg">

<P>

Comments added so far:<P>

Romulus: <I>

If the boy was shot by the PA, why did the IDF subsequently destroy the wall (and the evidence)?</I> [note: we are looking for a source for this]<P>

historian1944: <I>

What do we make of the fact that the three larger holes appear in the wall before they are dead, and then, in the "after photo" two more appear? One appears to be hidden by the child in the first photo, and also appears to be of the same manufacture as the other holes in the wall. However, there is a much smaller hole below the bottommost larger hole. Those two holes are the only ones that do not appear in the "before" picture.<p>If the holes were there before the people were killed, how can it be verified that the shots that killed the two people were caused by fire from that direction? There is no evidence that shows that the holes might not have been there before the whole firefight. With just "during" photographic evidence, there is no way to know when those larger holes were actually put in the wall, unless there are more frames that show the holes appearing.<p>With just the frames posted, it would appear that the source of the smaller hole is what killed the man and the boy.</I><P>

Trident/Delta: <I>If you have the opportunity to examine the entire montage of photo's. you can see the holes being punched as the photog clicks away. As I indicated on my earlier post, the key indicator is the hole itself. a symetrical hole, cleanly round with the subsequent "halo" of the concrete around it indicates a right-angle impact. there is no visible indication of an oblique impact.</I><P>

Alamo-Girl: <I>I'm thinking the hole of the bullet that killed the child is the one directly adjacent to the father's right tshirt sleeve. It looks like a larger caliber than the one further over.</I><P>

NoMoreClintonGore: <I>

Here is a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/950000/video/_952600_shooting2_vi.ram"> link </a> to the video of this incident from BBC. You'll need real player.<P></I>

Publius6961 in reply to "<i>To get rid of a rallying point and shrine for more hot headed sickos.</i>"<p> <I>

And their syncophants, you forgot to add.<br>

What's the matter? You think the Israelis have tampered with the Palestinian cameraman's tape? You think they added the bulletholes in the wall? What?</I>

<P>

truth_eagle: <I>

Huh ? No, the holes speak for themselves just like the article says. The bullets could not have come from the Israeli positions!</I><P>

 

Jackie222: <I>

I am so glad that you are researching this. I haven't read (but will) all the posts here but had to give a bump for truth. <p>The whole thing looked suspicious from the beginning .....like the opening scene from a movie. </I><P>

mykids%27mom: <I>

Sorry, I don't get it. Where is the location of the camerman in relation to the locations of IDF and Palestinian shooters? The questions Alamo Girl asks are so obvious that I thought for sure others had already looked into this and came to the conclusion that the lad was shot by the IDF. If there was any way to exhonorate the IDF wouldn't the Israelis have done so? If so, please post the details of their investigation. <p>What has always bothered me was the way the father looked straight at the cameraman and seemed to implore him to help. I always thought that was very curious.<p>Regardless of whoever shot the boy, it is not surprising that the father would steadfastly accuse the IDF.</I><P>

Sabramerican: <I>

Something just occurred to me. The father has been criticized for not shielding his son. I believe that is wrong. The father IS shielding his son from his "perceived enemies". He is shielding his son from those on his left-where the Israelis where stationed.

<P>

The boy was killed from slightly to the fathers's right or straight on. The father would not think to shield his son from that direction. The only ones there WERE HIS OWN PEOPLE.</I><P>

Alamo-Girl: <I>Great catch, Sabramerican!!! The father wasn't expecting it! Also, he yelled something like "don't shoot!" ... it appears he was yelling in the direction of the cameraman, and the bullet holes look like they came straight on from that direction!<P></I>

Trident/Delta: <I>

What exactly don't you understand???? The Israelis HAVE exonerated themselves. The shots were fired from the right and slightly to the rear of the Father and son. looking at the larger picture, that puts the shooter in the vicinity of the trees across the street from the place where the boy died. Bottom line.....The PLA killed the kid to martyr him.</I><P>

FrankM in response to "<I>The boy was killed from slightly to the fathers's right or straight on. The father would not think to shield his son from that direction. The only ones there WHERE HIS

OWN PEOPLE."</I><P><I>what is your evidence for this claim??...<P>through most of the video the man is shielding his son from gunfire coming from the original israeli position...but is it the common practice of the idf to indefinitely yield a busy intersection to a few gunmen, or is it more likely that they would make a move to reopen the intersection??...<P>if the israelis were to make such a move, the logical path to flank the arab positions would be to send a force through the orchard directly across the street from the man and his son...<P>just before the boy is killed, the man looks over toward that orchard, and sees something that increases his terror...(israelis emerging from the orchard??...) he attempts to shield his son from this new source of danger...throws his arm in front of the tiny crouching body, but his arm cannot save the life of the little boy...<P>i've no proof, beyond a reasoned analysis, that the boy was killed by israelis...if you've any evidence that the only people on the orchard side of the street "WHERE (sic) HIS OWN PEOPLE", please supply that evidence...<P>hint: showing the positions of forces at the beginning of a gunfight is not evidence that these forces never moved and were not re-inforced during the course of the gunfight...<P></I>

 

Sabramerican: <I>The Israelis were is a single fortified position.

<P>

Someone post the site layout picture for this guy.<P></I>

Structure: <I>

This is truly some of the most pathetic attempts at obfuscation and damage control that I have ever seen.<p><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39d9e23958fa.htm">

Army Says 12-Year-Old Palestinian Boy Apparently Killed by Israeli Fire </a><p>For a much more realistic and ACCURATE diagram of the shooting, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,6191,377275,00.html<P></I>

Alamo-Girl: From your linked article: <i>"This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about," the army chief of operations, Giora Eiland, told Israel radio Tuesday. "We conducted an investigation ... and as far as we understand, the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim." </I>

<P>

It appears their initial investigation was wrong one way or the other. Shots from the Isreali outpost could not have made those bullet holes. So either the Israelis were not in the outpost, or the boy was killed by a non-Israeli shooter. The schematic on your link only proves up that the angle was 30 degrees and actually supports the IDF view!

<P>

Frankm in response to "<I>The Israelis were is a single fortified position. Someone post the site layout picture for this guy."</I><P><I>the israelis were initially in a single fortified position...but the gunfight went on for hours...it is logical to assume that the israelis would at some point take action to relieve their besieged position...a sensible move by the israelis would be to send a force through the orchard to flank the arab firing positions...such a flanking move would put the israelis into the position from which the boy was killed...<P>as ought be obvious to you from my previous post, i have studied "the site layout picture"...take a closer look at that picture yourself...analyse it...realize that it is a diagram of the positions at one point in time...realize further the liklihood of movement from these initial positions...put yourself in the position of israelis wanting to flank the arab positions, and put an end to the gunfight...then look again at where the boy was likely shot from...in short, think...don't just believe...</I><P>

 

Sabramerican: <I>Near that time an Israeli soldier died from his wounds at Joseph's Tomb because they were not leaving fortified positions. They were responding to attacks only. The Israelis were not engaged in flanking maneuvers or maneuvers of any kind.

<P>

This gun fight took minutes not hours. The Israelis never left their positions. What occurred is so obvious from the evidence that there really is no reasonable doubt.

<P>

Frankly, it's hard to believe. And oh so sad that such things are possible

<P>

I understand your panicky attempt for another explanation. You have to believe this didn't happen otherwise as a human being you would have a hard time supporting people who would do such a thing.<P></I>

Alamo-Girl: Here are two more research threads you may wish to review:<P>

<a HREF="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a006b883cd7.htm">

PALESTINIANS, NOT ISRAELIS, KILLED THE 12-YEAR-OLD BOY </a><br>

<a HREF=" http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a00b5fc7f8e.htm">

Who Killed The Terrified Palestinian Boy? Was It A Palestinian/France2TV Propaganda Plot? </a><br>

<BR>

Mr_Magoo: <I>If you look at the positions in the IDF pic in post#6, the IDF were in a fortified structure, surrounded by the PA. Being surrounded, they were not in a position to go on a flanking manuver.<P></I>

 

Frankm in response to "<I> They were responding to attacks only. The

Israelis were not engaged in flanking maneuvers or maneuvers of any kind.</I>"<P>please provide some verification of this...

<i><P>This gun fight took minutes not hours.</I><P>hmmm...doesn't sound like you have much info on the event...the following from the LA times:<P><I> An Israeli military commander said the shooting was under investigation and that it was not yet clear whose bullets felled the boy, who was buried early Sunday

without an autopsy, in the Palestinian tradition.<P>

"First of all, I am very, very sorry from the depth of my heart," Maj. Gen. Yom-tov Samia, head of military forces in the southern region that includes Gaza, told Israeli

radio. But, he added, he was sure Rami and his father, Jamal, "were there not just by accident." <P>

He said the pair were part of a crowd throwing rocks and firebombs and, as such, were at risk.<B> The Israeli army post had come under gunfire from four or five

Palestinian positions for two hours,</B> Samia said. One position, he said, was about 20 yards from where the father and son huddled against a wall.</I><P>please make some effort to find out what the facts may be, before stating what the facts are...<P>

Alamo-Girl to Mr_Magoo: I see what you mean, there is no "back door" for them. Great catch! Thank you so much for the analysis!<P>

Mr-Magoo to Alamo-Girl: Exactly. They were pinned in by live fire on 3 sides. Side 4 is other bldgs. During daylight, there is no way to do a flanking manuver without drawing a whole lotta attention.<P>

As a matter of fact, look closely at the pic in #6. On the right edge. The PA shooter's position is on the rooftop of the highrise. That shooter has a perfect field of view of the entire courtyard in the 4th direction.<P>

FrankM in response to "<I>If you look at the positions in the IDF pic in post#6, the IDF were in a fortified structure, surrounded by the PA. Being surrounded, they were not in a position to go on a

flanking manuver."</I><P>but if you look closer at that fortified structure, you'll realize that it is too small to contain the entire idf...thus others were available to re-inforce the besieged israelis...or do you assume that the idf cares so little about the lives of its soldiers that it would make no effort to relieve them??...<P>

Mr_Magoo: <I>With the PA shooter on top of the highrise at the right edge of the photo, they would spot any re-enforcements on the highway or trying to cover the open ground behind the grove of trees where the <B>PA</B> shooter shot the kid from.<P></I>

Alamo-Girl <I>I see what you mean about the highrise shooter! Whoever was at that post had great visibility.<P>

I've been looking for anything that might show the standard operating procedure for the IDF when under fire and inside one of their strongholds. No luck so far, but I'm still looking...</I>

 

More information for the discussion:<P>

Jerusalem Post Arieh O'Sullivan NETZARIM (October 2) "…..Mohammed's mother watched the whole thing on television......The IDF expressed regret over the boy's death, but OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yomtov Samia insisted that the boy was not killed by army gunfire....

"I have no doubt that the gunfire, as it appears in the television close-up, was not from IDF soldiers," Samia told Channel 2. "We are treating this incident very seriously and are investigating it thoroughly. We are examining the photo angles and the angles of fire to understand where it came from and from whom." ….."

<P>

This raises the question to me whether the mother was watching it "live" --- and if so, how or why would they know to show that particular part of the battle on live TV?

<P>

On the other thread, I included excerpts from the Committee to Protect Journalists that indicate it was a Palestinian cameraman (plus other interesting background material.)

From the other thread, an excerpt that needed to be repeated here...<P>

From the Committee to Protect Journalists at http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Is_Pal_oct00/Is_Pal-oct00.html<P>

<DIR>

"…..More than 170 people have been killed in Israel and the Palestinian territories since violence broke out in late September, but the two sides are also fighting a media battle in which words and images are weapons of war.

<P>

…..On September 30, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a 12-year-old Palestinian boy named Mohammed al-Dura while he and his father cowered against a wall in the Gaza Strip. A <b>Palestinian cameraman filmed the event for French television: </b>the killing shocked viewers around the world and created enormous international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Palestinian television broadcast the footage repeatedly over the next few days, while pictures of the terrified little boy turned up on pro-Palestinian placards, pamphlets, and Web sites everywhere.

<P>

.... Because the media has such enormous power to shape international perceptions, both sides have used crude means to control and inhibit the work of journalists covering the clashes<P>

.... For example, Palestinian police attempted to keep images of the Ramallah lynching from reaching the public by confiscating film from reporters at the scene, according to international news reports. Nasser Atta, a Palestinian producer with the ABC News network, was outside the Ramallah police station with a camera crew as the bloody scene unfolded. Appearing the next day on ABC's "Nightline," he told host Ted Koppel that crowd members had assaulted his team to stop them from filming the action. "I saw how the youth tried to prevented [sic]---prevented my crew from shooting this footage. My cameraman was beaten," Atta said. <P>

.... Meanwhile, Israeli forces have attacked reporters covering street violence. <b>Many journalists covering the conflict for international news media are Palestinians. </b>In the past three weeks, CPJ has confirmed six cases of journalists have been beaten or wounded by gunfire, while nearly half a dozen other reports remain unconfirmed. In at least two cases, the journalists charged that they were targeted deliberately. On September 29, Khaled Abu Aker, a correspondent with the French television station France 2 and the West Bank stringer for The New York Times, was beaten by Israeli police at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem after the journalist refused to hand over a rubber-coated metal bullet that he had picked up off the ground. On October 1, Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was wounded in the leg by a rubber bullet while covering street clashes in Hebron. The next day, he was struck in the same leg by live Israeli rounds.

<P>

.... The ability of photographers and cameramen to transmit powerful images of ugly events makes them logical targets of image-conscious settlers and soldiers. But Israel has not been the only force seeking to control press coverage in the Palestinian territories. In the nearly seven years since the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) assumed control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, Chairman Yasser Arafat and his multi-layered security apparatus have muzzled local press critics via arbitrary arrests, threats, physical abuse, and the closure of media outlets. <P>

....These punitive measures almost always occur outside any recognizable legal framework. While the PNA criminal code contains several statutes that could be used to restrict independent journalism, these laws have never been applied in practice. The actual repression is informal, but effective: local journalists can expect swift retribution if they criticize Arafat, his cronies, or the shadowy Palestinian state security apparatus. <P>

....Over the years, the Arafat regime has managed to frighten most Palestinian journalists into self-censorship. Major newspapers routinely avoid coverage of issues such as high-level PNA corruption and mismanagement, human rights abuses by security forces, and any reporting that might cast Arafat in a negative light. They censor themselves out of fear and because they have been reluctant to undermine their political leaders during the struggle for Palestinian statehood. Moreover, two out of three Palestinian dailies have direct personal or financial links to the PNA government. And all three papers enjoy cozy relations with the PNA, further blunting their editorial edge. <P>

....There is an opposition Palestinian press that includes a few small-circulation Islamist weeklies in Gaza. There are also several private TV and radio stations. But even the most acerbic commentators tend to observe the central PNA taboo, that Arafat must never be criticized directly. And they exercise the utmost care when covering political arrests, torture, and other human-rights abuses, along with official corruption and security cooperation between the PNA and the Israeli armed forces.

</DIR>

Phil V: <P>

<img src = "http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2000/10/03/gaza_shooting3.gif"><p><P>

Frankm in response to "<I>With the PA shooter on top of the highrise at the right edge of the photo, they would spot any re-enforcements on the highway or trying to cover the open ground

behind the grove of trees where the PA shooter shot the kid from."</I><P>israeli jeeps are well armored, including special windshields produced< i believe, by an israeli firm...the same firm that manufactures their new body armor...they might have taken fire from the highrise but could certainly return more than they got...</P>as for your "the PA shooter", repetition does not constitute proof...some evidence ought be offered...if you have any please present it...your claim is not evidence supporting your claim...<P>

Alamo-Girl to Phil V: <I>Curious thing about the schematic... it doesn't show the source of Palestinian fire (7 points, from most directions - according to the IDF photo) --- it shows just the rioters and the boy and his father.</I><P>

ICU812: <I>

I agree that from the picture at reply #6(and the firing positions it shows)that the IDF inside the stronghold could not of gotten out(in some sort of flanking maneuver) to fire on the wall at roughly a 90 degree angle. But isn't it possible that in a 2 hour firefight the IDF could of sent in reinforcements from another position and that they could have approached from that angle and fired on the shooters on either side of the boy and his father and hit them accidentally.<P></I>

Mr_Magoo in response to "<I>For a much more realistic and ACCURATE diagram of the shooting..."</I><P>That drawing is not accurate. Compare it to the photo in post #6. The setback of the IDF building is all wrong, and the buildings in the upper right and lower left DON'T EXIST! Both those areas are trees. Sheeesh!<P>

Alamo-Girl: <I>I've been trying to explore the possibility of other Israeli shooters outside the outpost and haven't found anything to support the hypothesis. The IDF reports didn't have any such comments nor did any of the articles I've seen. If you have a source I'd sure appreciate it!

<P>

If only the cameraman had taken a picture of the shooter our quest would be much easier. The fact that the cameraman was a Palestinian and didn't look for the shooter is troubling. I would think he would have wanted proof.<P></I>

Mr_Magoo: <I>If IDF reinforcements tried to approach the area, the PA gunman on the highrise would have spotted them and warned the other PA fighters who would have either repositioned, or withdrawn. <P></I>

Frankm to Phil V: :<I>hmmm...which is accurate??...this diagram or the idf photo??...if this, then my theory of a flanking move through the orchard looks untenable...

but if this one is accurate, why would the idf have put out an inaccurate one??...</I>

 

Mr_Mago <I> I will check in tomorrow when I have a clear head.<P>Final comments for tonite... I have seen on other threads that the PA is using cell phones to direct these attacks. Also noting the positions of forces in the IDF photo, this attack was well planned. The IDF stronghold was surrounded, the PA had the high positions for spotting any reinforcements or troop movements. This happened in the middle of the day. That area has little in the way of cover to hide force movements for flanking. I see no way for an IDF troop to have gotten into a position in the trees to have made the shots on the kid without being seen. </I><P>

Alamo-Girl: <I>I agree with you Mr_Magoo! The IDF troops were pinned down in the outpost. Moreover, I have found no mention - at all - of other IDF or settlers involved in the incident that day!</I><P>

 

Lion Cub: <I>The link for the video said "file not found", so I couldn't play it to confirm my observations. But look at the first picture of the shooting. Note the position of the child's feet. He was squatting or sitting a little behind his father, as would be expected. The visable sandal is very near the line of bullet holes, which would parallel the child's body. When the shooter fired, the child instinctively drew closer to his father, and his father instinctively reached back to try to draw him AWAY FROM the bullets.<p>As has been noted, the bullets were fired from either slightly behind or straight on - THE SAME ANGLE AS THE CAMERA. The camera man HAD TO BE WITH THE SHOOTERS - he would have gotten out of their line of fire otherwise. Had he shot the video from behind the shooters, he would certainly have caught them on camera if they were IDF or would have at least said that he saw them...<P>

BTW, I agree that the smaller cal. shot is probably what killed the boy, since that would be about right for the level of the child's abdomen if he were sitting there. Also, the chipped area aound the hole is clean-no signs of aging. In addition, it appears to be basically a "straight on shot", which would indicate that the shooter was laying on the ground, since the hole is so low to the street. I think there were at least two shooters and the camera man...<P></I>

Truth_eagle: <I>

What kind of evil savages would kill this innocent little boy in cold blood, just for cheap propaganda purposes ? This should show to the world how intensely evil the PLO leadership is.</I>

<P>

 

muawiyah: <I>

The day this happened PBS broadcast the complete film, which the Networks did not do. Also, here in WarshDC, in Northern Virginia, we have Channel 56, so we saw France 2.<P>They had full film and sound over a 3 or 4 minute period.<P>It was immediately clear that the kid and his father were being hit by rounds from an automatic weapon firing precise bursts of 4. This meant that he had acquired his target, knew what the target was, and was making sure he hit the target. That is, the kid was killed intentionally by the person firing the weapon. It wasn't just a case of "cross fire".<P>The particular weapon doing the firing that coincided with effects on the victims (slumping, ceasing to move) did not sound like an Israeli or Western made automatic weapon. Rather, it sounded like a Russian made automatic weapon, possibly even a rebuilt Syrian or Iraqui piece originally manufactured in Kazan or somewhere!.<P>My conclusion at that time was that it could not have been the Israeli DF folks in the outpost, but somebody behind the camera. Undoubtedly the cameraman saw them, or he is just numb from the neck up.<P>My conclusion was objected to at the time here in FR by most folks because it let the Israelis off the hook. It's nice to see that they, themselves, have finally decided that they probably didn't do this particular killing. Now, it's time for Mossad to find the cameraman to interview!<P></I>

 

 

Mole: in reponse to <I>In one of the final photos of the sequence, there is a bullet hole in the wall just above the boys calf. This indicates focused, aimed fire. Again the hole is clean, round and not eliptical. </I> …. Determining the angle of impact of a projectile by the shape of the crater is unreliable at best. Impact craters are round no matter the angle of impact. Look at the moon; no ovals……

A couple of questions: What is that wall made of? Stone or concrete block? Caliber of the bullets that made the craters? …..

The Arabs are known to have M-16's as well as AK-47's. The larger craters could be from a larger caliber, 7.62 (AK-47, possibly IDF) or smaller caliber fired from a closer range, 5.56 (M-16, used by both sides). The same projectile impacting with greater energy will make a bigger crater…… That said; without hard physical evidence the photographs are inconclusive. <P>

 

 

Alamo-Girl <I> I truly wish we could do what is often shown in movies -- and zoom in on the eyes of the father to capture a reflection of who he was yelling at "Don't Shoot!"</I><P>

 

Alamo-Girl: <I>Thank you for sharing your analysis and concerns! Someone alleged that the wall has since been destroyed, but I have found nothing to substantiate that allegation. If the wall is standing or even if the blocks have been broken or relocated, I'm confident the forensic laboratories available can confirm or rebut a lot of the details alleged by the IDF. I would not be surprised to learn that the lab tests have already been made. Our own CIA is working with LEOs and intelligence on both sides...</I><P>

Alamo-Girl: It wasn't a French crew, the cameraman was Palestinian. From the Committee to Protect Journalists at http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Is_Pal_oct00/Is_Pal-oct00.html

<P><DIR>

"…..More than 170 people have been killed in Israel and the Palestinian territories since violence broke out in late September, but the two sides are also fighting a media battle in which words and images are weapons of war.

…..On September 30, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a 12-year-old Palestinian boy named Mohammed al-Dura while he and his father cowered against a wall in the Gaza Strip. <B>A Palestinian cameraman filmed the event for French television: </b>the killing shocked viewers around the world and created enormous international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Palestinian television broadcast the footage repeatedly over the next few days, while pictures of the terrified little boy turned up on pro-Palestinian placards, pamphlets, and Web sites everywhere.

</DIR>

I have watched the film clip repeatedly from this site http://themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html --- and it becomes obvious to me that the cameraman was intentionally focusing on the man and boy. Just before the fatal shot which causes the camera to jerk and several visual obstructions, both the man and the boy are looking at and yelling in that direction.

<P>

Even more strange to me is that the cameraman doesn't scan the area again after the shooting but stays focused on the dead child and the wounded father.<P>

On another thread, in response #139 to this statement "<I>Since you are nearly supra-human in your ability not to be wrong please explain how a photo of some bullet holes "proves conclusively" that a photographer and sniper of Palestinian descent shot this boy? Please look up the word "conclusively". </I> Freeper aruanan said the following:<P><DIR>

Since the sole point of fire from the Israelis was from down in the next block and on the other side of the street, since the gunfire that killed the boy came from the same direction that the camera was shooting from (the orientation of the bullet holes, the immediate reaction of the cameraman to close-by gunfire, the sound of very close-by gunfire) since the boy and his dad (and the cameraman, and the shooter) were flanked on either side by "Palestinian" gun positions that were actively firing down toward the IDF building, since neither of these positions began firing toward the cameraman following the shooting of the boy, since the cameraman's own story has remained suspiciously obscure, since the cameraman was Palestinian, and since the first comments by Israeli military before relative positions were verified showing that it couldn't be so were that it was possible the boy and his dad had been hit by Israeli fire but the first words out of the mouths of the "Palestinians" were "Israeli murder" and "a martyr's death, the conclusion that the boy was shot by someone other than an Israeli soldier, someone whom both the cameraman and the "Palestinian" snipers flanking the boy and his dad did not feel to be an enemy, is the more reasonable conclusion.

</DIR>

Mr_Magoo: More comments on the IDF photo.<P>

Based on size of the vehicle on the side of the road near the grove of trees (lower left), The IDF stronghold was about 300' away. The offset was about 45'. The bullet path would intersect the wall behind the al-Duras at about 15 degrees. A 15 degree impact would leave a elongated gouge in the concrete. Not the perfect round holes we see.

<P>

Next,<br>

If the shooter was positioned across the street in the trees/bushes slightly left of directly across, it would have been about a 50' shot that would leave nice round holes in the concrete block wall. There is a small clearing in just such a place in the photo. There is a dark line in the middle of the street that goes straight across from where the target was to the trees. Follow that line into the trees. That is where I think the camaraman was located, in that clearing. Now, move to the next clearing to the left, that is where I think the shots came from.

<P>

Alamo-Girl: Excerpts to show the Israeli position on the incident over time:<P>

http://www.idf.il/english/announcements/2000/october/1.stm 10/1/00 IDF Report "…The Palestinians are cynically using women and children by bringing them to the focal points of the confrontations in the territories. The event filmed in the Gaza Strip began by intentional gunfire, followed by throwing of explosive and Molotov cocktails by the Palestinians, including PA policemen, towards IDF forces. During these events hundreds of Palestinian rioters stormed IDF strongholds…………Heavy fire exchanges developed on the scene. The image filmed focused on the child and his father who were caught in the line of fire, therefore it cannot be determined who shot the child and father. ……….The IDF wishes to express its sadness at the loss of lives, especially children. However, it is clear that in this situation, the people caught in the exchange of fire could have been shot <b>by either</b> Palestinian or Israeli fire, and the responsibility for the event lies upon the Palestinians and those who began the riot……..This event will be investigated along with the general investigation of events…."

<P>

Jerusalem Post Arieh O'Sullivan 10/2/00 "…..The IDF expressed regret over the boy's death, but OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yomtov Samia insisted that the boy was<b> not killed by army gunfire</b>.... "I have no doubt that the gunfire, as it appears in the television close-up, was not from IDF soldiers," Samia told Channel 2. "We are treating this incident very seriously and are investigating it thoroughly. We are examining the photo angles and the angles of fire to understand where it came from and from whom." ….."

<P>

Associated Press 10/3/00 "…This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about," the army chief of operations, Giora Eiland, told Israel radio Tuesday. "We conducted an investigation ... <b>and as far as we understand,</b> the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers from the outpost at Netzarim…."

<P>

Arutz-7 Daily News 10/31/00 "….An IDF investigation and re-enactment appears to show conclusively that the 12-year-old boy from Gaza, Muhammad al-Dura, was <b>not shot by Israeli soldiers </b> - but was rather the victim of a cruel plot staged by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a television cameraman. …."

<P>

Footnote repeating observations made by Freepers which would apply to the statement by Eiland that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers <b>from the outpost</b> at Netzarim:"

<DIR>

Mr_Magoo: "…Based on size of the vehicle on the side of the road near the grove of trees (lower left), The IDF stronghold was about 300' away. The offset was about 45'. The bullet path would intersect the wall behind the al-Duras at about 15 degrees. A 15 degree impact would leave a elongated gouge in the concrete. Not the perfect round holes we see. …."

<P>

Trident/Delta: "…..Inasmuch as the pictures demonstrate that the wall will in fact reveal penetrations, and, using the "Truth about Israel" website picture, you can see that from the Israeli position, the man and his son were at an angle of 30-40 degrees from the source of Israeli gunfire. Ballistically speaking, a high speed projectile (i.e. bullet) hitting a wall at an angle of 30 to 40 degrees should leave a elongated eliptical POI (Point of impact) This would show on photo's as a "smear". Given the 30-40 degree angle of attack to the wall, the "smear" should show an overall length of 6-8 inches and the penetration point(the hole, or "black" part of the photo) should show a 2-3 inch long eliptical hole. <P>

The length of the "smear" would be critical in forensically assigning the direction the bullet was traveling at the time of impact. Police labs have done this for many many years in determining where a shooter was positioned when shots were fired. The same technique is applied here. It is claimed that the Israelis fired the killing shots. This is not the case. examination of the photos, both as published and simply enhanced with Adobe Photo Editor shows that the rounds fired at the Father and son originated from the right and slightly to the rear of the Fathers position. The holes, are clean round and the "halo" around the actual hole in the wall is symetrical and even. From a forensics aspect, this clearly indicates straight on impacts. Using the larger scale photo as a guide, it would appear that the point of origin for the killing shots was from the grove of trees across the road. <P>

This is simple forensics. And, unlike passionate political beliefs, forensics don't lie...."

<P></DIR>

Mr_Magoo: Clarification:<P>

What I did was load the photo into Photoshop. I overlaid a grid. The truck I referenced is directly across the street from the red circle on the left. I chose that vehicle because it was very close to 1 grid in length. The blue bullet path was 18 grids in length. A quick guess of 17 feet in length for the vehicle and rounding off the results gave the 300' bullet path.<P>

a straight line from the target position to directly across from the IDF position calc. out to about 45' for the offset. If I remember my HS geometery on triangles, (Nancy Allen was SUCH a distraction [grin]) the angle at impact is close to 15 degrees. It could run as high as 30 but I doubt it.<P>

jackbob: Great work! But hardly conclusive. Good probable cause for further inquiry. But not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt.<P>

I see only one bullet hole in the wall from the shooting event. The direction from which it came appears well beyond reasonable doubt. But that does not establish who, only who did not fire the shots. <p>

Were the shots fired by some Palestinians attempting a black propaganda coup, or from Israeli reinforcements? Facial expressions on the father can be read either way. Movements of the cameraman are likewise open to interpretation. I find that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the limited information available at this time. <p>

For those of us who are not biased toward either side, either conclusion seems quite reasonable. <p>

Alamo-Girl: I've been looking feverishly for anything in the news reports at that time or the military reports that would indicate either reinforcements, other IDF forces in the area or settlers involved. I have found nothing!<P>

I would appreciate any help to check out that possibility!<P>

In the meantime, as Mr_Magoo has pointed out, there was a Palestinian shooter on the top of the highrise building next to the outpost. This one plus the one behind the child and the one moving behind the building on the other side would have had a shot at any Israeli shooter in the area of the cameraman. And of course the gunman behind the child would have been an obvious target for any such Israeli shooter.

<P>

 

jackbob: Keep in mind, if it were Israeli reinforcements, then both the shooter, as well as the cameraman, would have been potentially at risk of being under direct fire. That means for the shooter, a quick glance, fast aim (usually just a fast pointing), quick fire while ducking or moving back out of view. For the cameraman, a quick focus and an attempt to brace the camera, immediately followed by the removal of ones head from any potential line of fire.<p>

<P>

Alamo-Girl: I expected a reaction like that from the cameraman ... but the cameraman is only briefly jarred and then remains <b>focused</b> on the child and father. Why wasn't he scanning for the shooter ... or making a "get-away" to protect himself?<P>

More information on the scene:<P>

Jamal Al Durra speaks out on arabia.com 10/30/00 Arabia.com http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a01e78a5c1e.htm

"….Jamal Al Durra: Four Bullets, The first in his right knee. I then called for help. My son told me that he wouldn’t cry, that is when I raised my right arm to ask for help. They didn’t stop firing at us, the gunfire increased. A bullet hit my right arm then I tried to protect Mohammad but<b> bullets were coming from several locations. </b>Soldiers were aiming at us. I tried to protect my son with my leg, Which was hit by bullets, that is when my pelvis was smashed, I used the cell phone to call the journalist Sami Ziara, he sent us an ambulance. The Israelis shot the ambulance driver Bassam Al Belbeisi dead. I called Sami Ziara again, and told him that the ambulance driver he sent us was killed. Sami told me that he was aware of the incident and that he sent us another one. The ambulance came, the driver couldn’t reach us due to the heavy shelling. By then, my son was dead on my lap, I tried to protect him with and every part of my body but I couldn’t. I was awake and aware of everything. I went to a hospital in Gaza, and the doctors nurses there thought I was unconscious so they were asking if anyone can identify me or Mohammad, I told them that I am completely aware of the situation, my name is Jamal Al Durra and this is my son the martyr Mohammad Al Durra. <P>

ArabCanadian: Jamal do you have any idea how many soldiers were shooting at you and your son? <P>

Jamal Al Durra: I couldn’t lift my head to count, <b>bullets were flying in all directions above my head. </b>…<P>

Jackbob in response to <i>Why wasn't he scanning for the shooter ... or making a "get-away" to protect himself?</i><p>

He may verywell have been looking around for the shooter, or just not in a position to safely photograph the shooter(s). Likewise, from a relatively safe position, he may not have wanted to further risk his life by trying to make a get-away." <p>

The point here, is that, with so little information available, it becomes necessary to expand our inquiry to include using our imagination to fill in gaps. But when doing so we should ensure that the expansions cover the three most likely possibilities. That is; the hate filled imperialistic zionest killers purposefully shot this most innocent father and child, the evil islamic fundementalist terrorists plotted this death for the international news media, and lastly, some Israeli soldier(s) in a very tense situation, either misidentified their target, or accidently shot the victems while intending a different target.<p>

A lot more information is now needed, before any reliable conclusion can be drawn.<p>

<P>

Mr_Magoo: A-G, I just now saw something else in the photos. This is getting complicated. T/D, Take a look and tell me what you think. <P>In the photo of the 2 before they are shot, look above the man's head. I see long marks of a small cal bullet that hit at a shallow angle. To me they look like .223 size.<P>I will try to blow up the bullet holes and see what I can get.<P>

Alamo-Girl: Great catch, Mr_Magoo! Please let me know what you find! If that is sniper fire from the Israeli outpost position then it would give us important clues on how to evaluate the other bullet holes.<P>

Also, on the video clip - early in the sequence - it looks like a bullet hits the wall up high and behind the child. <P>

Also on the clip (I wish I knew how to do this better) - pausing it right when the shot occurs, the camera picks up what looks like dust and obstruction. I can't tell what is happening, but maybe you'll see something.<P>

I found the name of the camera man! His name is Talel Abu-Rahma ... but there are no other items attributed to him that I've been able to locate so far.<P>

 

Trident/Delta: in response to <i>Determining the angle of impact of a projectile by the shape of the crater is unreliable at best. Impact craters are round no matter the angle of impact. Look at the moon; no ovals.

</i><p>I am certain that this authoritarian(but wrong) statement will come as a total shock to the Police Department Forensics Instructors. My academy class on firearm crime scene analysis was 40 hours. I guess it was a waste of time. <p>You should get a hold of Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project. Think of all the convicted murders that you could get off that were convicted from crime scene analysis....But in the meantime wander down to your police department and ask one of their investigators to look at the pictures. Or, better yet, maybe actually LEARN something about forensics before you start passing judgement.<p>Semper Fi<P>

 

Trident/Delta to Mr_Magoo: I see what you are saying. Given the length of the smear, the angle of attack with respect to the IDF outpost, and using the assumption of the IDF probably using 5.56mm weapons then those marks, are consistent with high-velocity ricochet's. They don't appear as penetrations though. A small caliber high-velocity round would tend to deflect in such a manner with such a shallow angle of attack. It would be consistent with the indicated marks. Analysis of the bullet holes is more consistent with rounds being fired from the area where the photos were taken.<p> AG, I have never seen the line drawing that you have posted. It is so incorrect in comparison to the provided photo. The scale is incorrect, there are buildings shown where there are none, and the position of the IDF outpost is inconsistent with the photo. I would consider these as two totally separate areas.<p>Jackbob, you cannot be serious about only seeing one bullet hole. There are many. Regarding the "kill" shot for the boy, adjacent the right arm of the father (in the second picture) there is an indication of a bullet hole that woul line up wth where the sons abdominal area is in the first photo.<p>IF and it is an admitted if, the indication next to the fathers sleeve is a projectile impact, and given the wall appears to be constructed of concrete blocks, probably not dissimilar to those we are all familiar with, given the standard length of about 12 inches per block, that impact would have occurred at a distance of 18-20 inches from the water barrel. Given the angle of attack from the Israeli outpost, it is a physical impossibility for the shot to have originated from the outpost. That is, unless the Israelis have developed guided rounds, there is no way that kid was shot from the outpost.<P>

 

Mr_Magoo in response to <I>I see what you are saying. Given the length of the smear, the angle of attack with respect to the IDF outpost, and using the assumption of the IDF probably

using 5.56mm weapons then those marks, are consistent with high-velocity ricochet's. They don't appear as penetrations though. A small caliber

high-velocity round would tend to deflect in such a manner with such a shallow angle of attack. It would be consistent with the indicated marks. Analysis of

the bullet holes is more consistent with rounds being fired from the area where the photos were taken.</I><P>

I agree. The lines are most likely from 5.56 fired from the IDF stronghold position. They fit the 15 degree angle that I posed in post #22 and 25. The round holes are from across the road. I added where I think the camaraman and the gunman were positioned to the overhead photo.<P><img src="http://cyber77.com/alolson/images/pos1.jpg"><P>

Judging from the size of the round holes, I think they were from something larger than a 5.56. Maybe a FAL in .308?<P>

 

Alamo-Girl: BTW, I received an email that suggested the sound on the video clip was like a poorly maintained heavier machine gun. The anonymous emailer suggested it might be a Russian style equivalent of an M-60 in poor condition. I know nothing about firearms, but thought the lead might help you.<P>

 

Jackbob: I didn't say I saw only one bullet hole. What I said, was that "I see only one bullet hole in the wall from the shooting event." Scroll up this page to the two photos. You see three holes in the wall in the first photo. Then scroll down to the second photo, and there are five. The one hole just above the boy's ankle was not in the wall in the first photo. The light colored ring around it, suggests to me a freshness, not seen in any of the four other holes. The second hole not seen in the first photo, was blocked out of sight by the upright boy in the first photo. When these four holes were put in the wall, I can not say. But that single fifth hole was clearly made after the first photo. A close look at the light colored ring around it, indicates to me that it came from the approximate direction of the photographer across the street. This to me is the only really proven fact in the entire controversy. That is that the boy was shot from across the street (not from way down and across the street).<p><P>

Jackbob: Sorry, I don't know anything more about the particulars than what I read here on FR. It would be nice if some of your other experts would discuss the light colored ring seen clearly only around the one bullet hole, and not around any of the other holes (see reply #47 above).<p>

Alamo-Girl to jackbob: Trident/Delta has addressed the "halo" around the hole and indicates that is proof of a straight on shot. <P>

The hole adjacent to the father's right t-shirt sleeve is the one we think killed the boy, going through his body, and probably is therefore discolored.<P>

According to the father, the boy was shot several times and so was he. One wound he describes hitting him in the pelvic area also sounds like a straight on shot to me, but I can't seem to find his leg in front of the boy as he described when running the video clip. Perhaps you can see it?

<P>

 

mole: So shock waves don't spread radialy from the point of impact? <P>

Trident/Delta: Yes, they do, but the "impact" in this case would consist of a elongated path. If the angle of attack to the surface is 15 to degrees, the projectile would continue in a straight line in relation to its travel, after impact. In these photos, if they were fired from the outpost, they would had to have stopped and made a hard right upon impact. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.<p>Semper Fi<P>

 

Trident/Delta: My assumption on the mark by the boys foot is that it is either a smaller caliber round or, again, if the wall is constructed of concrete blocks similar to those in the US, (i.e. "cinder block") there are three partitions athwarts the block. The point of impact looks to possibly be on one of the partitions. This would prevent a full penetration since instead of hitting a 1.5 inch thick concrete partion, it would have impacted a 8 inch thick concrete partition. that would result in a deep crater in the concrete surface that would cast a lighter appearance on the wall. Although it appears to me the it could very well be a different caliber impact, it is possible that it was the same weapon.<p>Semper Fi<P>

 

Trident/Delta in response to <i>Judging from the size of the round holes, I think they were from something larger than a 5.56. Maybe a FAL in .308?</i><p>My vote is for 7.62x39. .30 cal bullet, but not enough velocity to cause more than penetration of one side of the blocks in the wall. .308 fired from 50 to 150 feet would blown through the wall and daylight would subsequently be visible through the holes. (in my opinion)<p>Semper Fi

<P>

Sabramerica: Check out the father as witness

<P>

<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a01e78a5c1e.htm">

Father</a>

<P>

black: We both agree, I think, that the projectile releases it's energy upon impact. That energy then spreads radialy. The energy pulverizes the stone or concrete in a circular pattern and the fragments are thrown in the direction the projectile was traveling. It's the reason all the craters on the moon are round. The shape of the crater does not tell you angle of impact; it's the marks and striations within the crater and the ejecta pattern that tell you that.<p>

If the wall is made from concrete block those darker circles may be holes through to the internal cavities. If that is the case i would expect to see more oval shapes depending on angle of impact. We don't know what the wall is made of so they could be holes or deeper craters that are shadowed.<P>

 

Lois: Has any one noticed on the video, on the first thread, there appears to be someones shoulder partially blocking the camera view, some one standing in front of and to the right of the camerman?

<P>

Trident/Delta: The craters on the moon display a round appearance because of the decaying affect of the moons gravity on the approaching mass, it draws the approaching mass into a somewhat direct impact. Since the wall has no gravitational affect on the approaching bullet, then the bullet would have a more or less direct line of travel. That being said, the projectile, would create an initial "force impact" crater at the opint of initial contact with the wall, but the velocity and cross-sectional density would continue in the direction of travel, the kinetic energy of the projectile would be transferred to the concrete resisting the force and based on the strutural integrity of the cast block, debris would be pushed ahead of the projectile causing a hydrostatic damaage path consistent with the direction of travel. i.e. there would be an elongated smear on the wall. Question: Have you ever even touched a firearm??? Your ignorance of ballistic behavior is astounding.<p>Semper Fi<P>

Mole in response to <I>The craters on the moon display a round appearance because of the decaying affect of the moons gravity on the approaching mass, it draws the approaching mass into a somewhat direct impact.</I><p>

Not when the meteor comes screaming in at 200km/sec.<p>

I was just trying to point out that the analysis of impact angles was flawed and assumed more than was in evidence. Nothing personal, buddy. No need to get nasty.<P>

 

Thorn11cav: I would consider the size of the bullet hole as secondary in importance. Small caliber bullets like the 223cal. used by the Israeli's make large holes too due to their high speed (3500fps).<p>The thing to consider isn't just the size of the hole...but also the shape. Bullets distribute mass in the direction of their travel. Hence, at an angle the hole would appear elongated or oval depending on the angle. At 30 degrees the smaller 223 bullet may have just glanced off the wall causing an oval indentation resembling what would look like something removed with a spoon.<p>I also believe that had the hole come from 223's they'd been much larger due to the explosive nature of that round when hitting solid mass, a more funnel like hole. What we see in the wall are hole indicative of the 762x39 bullet not a 223. <P>

MHGinTN in response to <b><i>The craters on the moon display a round appearance because of the decaying affect of the moons gravity on the approaching mass, it draws the approaching mass into a somewhat direct impact.</b></i> This is incorrect for most meteors because of their speed. The Earth's gravitational effect on the meteor is far greater than that of the Moon, but still negligible as the object approaches (the meteor trails in the night sky will tell you that).<p>

Fact is, there are elongated craters on the moon, as seen when you start down into the excavation pit. The rims of the craters tend to have a roundish appearance due to the impacting at great velocity. [The meteor that wiped out the dinos 65 million years ago left a non-round crater in the Yucatan, if I'm not mistaken.] There is however a plowing effect with many impacts on the moon, but most impacts are more direct and there are so many that the net visual effect is the roundish variety. Also, the impact energy creates a plastic effect to the moon debris, vaporizing some, liquifying other, and spraying more. The primary erosion factor on the Moon is meteor impacting. The Moon's gravity (or mass differential between the two objects) is immaterial in cratering effects, but of import regarding the subsequent *erosion* of markings.<p>

How that applies to weapon ballistics?... I haven't a clue! I just shoot the things. I don't study the ballistics. I do know that speed at impact has a great deal to do with whether the missle will ricochete or not. Also, the inertial mix of mass and speed has a lot of bearing on whether the holes are nice and neat, or ragged. The .308 round moving at the usual velocity of a military round will punch through amazing amounts of obstruction mass ... the other side of the block wall would be showing through if the two people were shot from 50 to 150 yards with a .308 FAL ... I guarantee it, even if at an angle of maybe up to 45 degrees. A 5.56 or .223 or 7.62 x 39 AK type round is my best guess, fired from close to the camera person.<p>

It bothers me that the interview with the father includes his characterization of the boy as a martyr, seemingly with pride! That child is dead. Screw the Arab lust for popular martyrs. The insanity in the Mid East isn't going to ebb until the notion of glorious martyrs is debunked ... the boy is gone. He is likely with God, but that is not what God sent that child here for, to be exploited by fanatics! <P>

 

 

 

Virgil123: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/04/world/04VIOL.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/04/world/04VIOL.html</a>

<p><I>

investigation that included a detailed analysis of 31 deaths over 24 days

in Gaza, including that of Muhammed el-Dura, 12, whose televised killing

became a global symbol of the conflict.<p>

Like most of the dead in Gaza, the boy, shot in the chest and abdomen,

was killed in Netzarim junction by high-velocity bullets from an M-16,

the standard Israeli Army rifle, the report said.</i> ……

The IDF uses M-16's. PA forces use AK-47.

<P>

<P>

 

Doctors Back Many Palestinian

Accusations, but Not All<BR>

By WILLIAM A. ORME Jr. New York Times<P>

JERUSALEM, Nov. 3 — "…..

The inquiry, by the Physicians for Human

Rights, based in Boston, documents what it

said was a pattern of the Israeli Army's using

live bullets to wound and disperse unarmed

rioters, a practice prohibited by army

guidelines unless Israeli lives are at risk. <P>

But the army did not use exploding bullets or

other internationally banned ammunition, as

Palestinian officials have contended, according

to the American forensic pathologists who

conducted the investigation. <P>

An examination of hundreds of Palestinian

casualties also found that scores had been

killed or badly injured by rubber-coated steel

bullets fired at close range, another

contravention of army rules, the report said.

The army "used live ammunition and rubber

bullets excessively and inappropriately," the

report said, adding that soldiers "appeared to be shooting to inflict harm,

rather than solely in self-defense."<P>

……

The death of Issam Judeh on Oct. 8 was a result of a traffic accident, as

the army had originally reported, rather than a killing by the army, as

Palestinian officials asserted, according to the doctors, who made an

extensive study of photographic evidence, X-rays, hospital reports, Mr.

Judeh's clothing and his damaged automobile.<P>

Mr. Judeh's death had been the most widely cited example in Palestinian

news media of a killing by Israeli settlers and soldiers. The Ramallah

hospital where Mr. Judeh's body was taken said the body showed signs

of torture, including deliberate burns.<P>

Photographs of the disfigured corpse were given prominence in

Palestinian newspapers and television reports. Israeli and Palestinian

officials said anger over Mr. Judeh's death led to the mob deaths of two

Israeli soldiers in Ramallah days later. <P>

Dr. Robert Kirshner and Dr. Nizam Peerwani, forensic pathologists who

have studied torture deaths in Africa, the Balkans and Central America,

said they had found no indications of torture or burns. As is common in

Muslim and Jewish cultures, where burials traditionally occur shortly after

death and marring the body is frowned upon, there was no autopsy, and

the available evidence showed injuries consistent with an automobile

accident, the experts said. Mr. Judeh's wife found the body on a

roadside near his damaged car. <P>

….

"We are still committed to what we announced," Mr. Sharif said. "We

are fully convinced that he was killed as a result of torture." <P>

…..

The examination into Mr. Judeh's death was part of a broader

investigation that included a detailed analysis of 31 deaths over 24 days

in Gaza, including that of Muhammed el-Dura, 12, whose televised killing

became a global symbol of the conflict. <P>

Like most of the dead in Gaza, the boy, shot in the chest and abdomen,

was killed in Netzarim junction by high-velocity bullets from an M-16,

the standard Israeli Army rifle, the report said. Thirty-eight percent of the

deaths were of children younger than 18 and 14 percent younger than

15, the report said.<P>

"Obviously, this is not a genocide, but in a setting of civil violence this is

tremendous amount of casualties," said Dr. Peerwani, whose research in

Bosnia and Rwanda has been used in war crimes prosecutions.<P>

The Boston group said half the fatal gunshots in the Gaza cases that it

studied were to the head. The investigation was primarily based on

hospital records, including posthumous X-rays.<P>

"Most Palestinian casualties were unfortunately shot in the upper body for

the simple reason that they committed shootings and terrorist acts against

Israeli solders and citizens," the Israeli Army said tonight in response to

the report.<P>

 

<P>

Alamo-Girl: Background Information on the Physicians for Human Rights organization for the researchers:<P>

<b>http://www.phrusa.org/about/history/index.html</b><P>

<DIR>

"…The principles guaranteeing international human rights -- so carefully enshrined in international law almost fifty years ago with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- are today routinely violated on virtually every continent.<P>

Dozens of governments detain their political opponents and those who advocate social or economic reforms. Armed forces and paramilitary groups rape and murder entire groups of individuals on the basis of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Millions of men, women, and children lack the most basic necessities of life and a voice in their country's political process guaranteed by international treaties.<P>

At the same time, virtually no major bilateral or multilateral meeting between or among world leaders today can avoid confronting questions of fundamental human rights. The human rights practices of governments are held up to scrutiny before the international community and by the global media as never before. No longer can governments or individuals make the claim that they did not know about atrocities occurring within the borders of another sovereign state. In dozens of countries, from South Africa to the Czech Republic, from Haiti to the Philippines, citizens with an acute awareness of their rights have demanded them, and have voted out or transformed oppressive regimes, reinvigorating or restoring their societies. Health professionals and scientists, because of their training, are uniquely qualified and can play an important role in human rights investigation, fact-finding, and documentation.<P>

For ten years, this has been the mission of Physicians for Human Rights. <P>

</DIR>

<B>http://www.phrusa.org/membership/index.html</b><P>

<DIR>

"….Physicians for Human Rights believes that health professionals have a unique opportunity to apply their skills and expertise to investigate and expose violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. PHR gathers documentary and physical evidence of violations of human rights--the kind of evidence that is hard to refute, never forgets, and is not absent when witnesses are. <P>

PHR uses this evidence to hold governments that violate human rights accountable for their actions. We believe such accountability provides the most secure foundation for future respect of human rights…."<P>

</DIR>

<P>

From MHGinTN on the other thread:<P>

Unless an Israeli soldier left the fortified compound and made his way to a position within an arc which allowed direct firing upon the father and the son who were un-hit for forty-five minutes behind the barrel, the Israelis didn't shoot that boy and his father. The sequence just before the rounds hit them shows they were as well behind the barrel as during the previous forty-five minutes! Someone had to reach a point beyond the 0 to 30 degree arc of the outpost, so the angle had to be 30 degrees to 180 degrees ... the Israelis had a 30 arc sweep for fire on the barrel position, but the hits had to have been from greater than 30 degrees to the barrel to reach the hidden figures.

<P>

Who fired from a position greater than 30 arc of the Israeli IDF position in the fortifications?

<P>

<P>

Los Angeles Times – 11/5/00 Rebecca Trounson "……....... Now, stung by criticism from human rights groups and others that it has used excessive force in the clashes, especially against children, Israel has gone on the offensive, accusing the Palestinian Authority and parents of cynically exploiting young people and deliberately exposing them to danger. ... Israeli officials say Palestinian children are actively encouraged to confront troops with rocks and firebombs and become "human shields" for Palestinian gunmen stationed at the rear of the rioting crowds. …… At the recent Middle East summit in Egypt, Israeli officials handed out copies of videotapes showing Palestinian children shouting anti-Israeli slogans and participating in summer camps where they learn such skills as assembling automatic rifles. ……… Palestinian officials and parents react with outrage to such remarks. They accuse Israel of deliberately targeting young people at the demonstrations, and then trying to dehumanize Palestinians by portraying them as people who do not care if their children are killed or injured. ……"

<P>

Los Angeles Times – 11/5/00 Rebecca Trounson "……....... In a London news conference Wednesday, Amnesty International strongly criticized Israel for using excessive force, far out of proportion to the threat posed to its soldiers, in trying to put down the unrest. A pattern of human rights violations could even leave Israel open to charges of war crimes, the organization suggested. …….. Amnesty faulted the Palestinians for lagging in their investigation into the mob killings of two Israeli reservists in the West Bank city of Ramallah last month, and for not doing enough to keep young children away from the bloody clashes. The Palestinian Authority and its police "have the responsibility to safeguard life," especially those of Palestinian children, the Amnesty delegation said. …….. Other Palestinians admit that they can't control teenage sons whose own anger and experience make them want to join in a battle they see as a struggle for their land and people, sometimes against the will of their parents. ………

<P>

Los Angeles Times – 11/5/00 Rebecca Trounson "…….... Besides, she said, "my son is not better than the others," the youths who have died in the conflict. "If he wants to go, then I need to encourage the way he feels about his homeland," she said. "If I keep my son away, and others keep theirs also, who will tell the world about our situation?" …….His father still disapproves, Muhanad said. "But I feel proud that I am doing something for my land," he said. ……. Other Palestinian parents, even bereaved ones such as Iman Jawarish, said they enthusiastically support their children's desire to play a role in the uprising. …… Receiving condolences one recent day in the Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem, Jawarish, 33, insisted that she was happy that her son Muayed, 13, shot in the head by Israeli soldiers, had died fighting for the Palestinian cause. "I told him to go fight the Israelis," Jawarish said, sipping bitter coffee as she sat with female relatives in a mourning ritual. "But he would go even if I didn't tell him; every Palestinian knows he has to fight." ……."

<P>

Los Angeles Times – 11/5/00 Rebecca Trounson "…….......The war crimes issue was further highlighted by an Israeli news source story on 31 October 2000. After initialing contending that the Palestinian boy had been caught in a crossfire and that the fatal bullets were of unknown origin, a high level Israeli investigation was conducted following which the "crossfire" story was abandoned with the formal announcement on Israeli radio that the boy was killed by Israeli bullets but a month later the Israeli news source story referred to alleged that after still further investigation, Israel had determined that the filmed shooting death of the boy had been a propaganda plot between Palestinian gunmen and the France2TV camerman, also a Palestinian, to kill the boy while video taping it and then blame it on Israeli soldiers. …… The startling contentions in that story did not clarify whether the alleged propaganda murder plot also included the shooting death of an ambulance attendant attempting to reach the terrified boy and the gunfire wounds of the boys father and the ambulance driver nor does it appear that Israel has formally endorsed that news source story todate. ……"

<P>

Arutz-7 Daily News 11/5/00 "…….For the second time in two days, the Palestinians falsely reported a killing by IDF soldiers. Yesterday, the Palestinians claimed that a child was killed by tear gas during the course of an Israeli dispersal of a demonstration. The IDF examination of events showed that the child was brought to the hospital early yesterday morning - before the demonstrations. This afternoon, the Palestinians claimed that IDF soldiers in Gaza killed one of their number; the IDF explained, after investigating the incident, that a would-be infiltrator into Israeli territory was indeed shot in the leg, but was only wounded. The IDF calls on the Palestinian Authority to desist from false reporting, and to implement the agreements reached at Sharm el-Sheikh. ….."

<P>

The Maccabean Online 10/25/00 Gerald Steinberg "……According to the Palestinians, over 40 children have been killed in the waves of violence and confrontations that began at the end of September. They have been killed in the front lines, providing cover for the armed Palestinian militias with machine guns and other weapons seeking to overwhelm isolated Israeli guard posts. The outnumbered Israeli soldiers, defending the civilians behind these outposts, cannot see the children through the small slits and openings (as was clearly the case at the Netzarim crossing in Gaza). The tragic images of these young victims provide first-rate propaganda to use against Israel. …….. Interviewed by journalists after these tragedies, some parents of these young victims refer to their children as "shaheeds" (martyrs), whose lives were given willingly and proudly to the Palestinian cause in fighting the hated Zionist enemy. In a scene that was unbelievably shocking, one mother boasted that she bore her son precisely for this purpose, and the father proudly claimed credit for providing the training. (The parents will also receive a sizeable financial "reward" from the Palestinian Authority.) ……."

<P>

The Maccabean Online 10/25/00 Gerald Steinberg "……After first buying into the Palestinian propaganda, the forces of morality in the world are beginning to confront this horrible reality. Sweden's Queen Silvia was among the first voices of conscience outside of Israel to raise this issue. In a meeting of the World Childhood Foundation that took place at the United Nations, she strongly criticized Palestinian parents for abusing their children in this way. "As a mother I'm very worried about this. I'd like to tell them to quit. This is very dangerous. The children should not take part." While the Palestinian leaders were cynically pursuing their political efforts to isolate Israel in a special meeting of the UN General Assembly, the Swedish Queen placing the responsibility precisely where it belongs, declaring, "The Palestinian leaders are exploiting them and risking their lives in a political fight." ……Queen Silvia's is not the only voice to be raised against this practice. A few journalists have begun to ask difficult questions to the Palestinian spokesmen whose presence on interview programs in newspaper reports is so ubiquitous. There are, of course, no good answers, and the questions themselves, as well as the very visible discomfort of the Palestinians, speak for themselves. ……"

<P>

The Maccabean Online 10/25/00 Gerald Steinberg "……Eventually, enough of these parents, and the children themselves, will bring the sacrifices for Arafat's war to a stop. They will need the support from many other parents and voices of morality around the world. Instead of investigating politically based charges of Israeli human rights violations, Mary Robinson, the commissioner responsible for human rights for the UN can save the lives of Palestinian children by following the lead of Queen Silvia. The committee for the Defense of Children International (DCI), based in Geneva, has an important role to play as well. The Palestinian branch of DCI, which is supported by donations designed for protecting children, uses these funds for propaganda attacks against Israel, while ignoring the abuses of children by the Palestinian leadership. ….."

Middle East News Line 11/3/00 "…… Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, fearing an opposition backlash, has effectively lost control in stopping violence against Israel. PA sources said Arafat has been alarmed by the continuation of bloody clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian demonstrators. They said he has lost control over the unrest, which has now targeted both Egyptian and Jordanian interests……. For the last week, the sources said, Arafat has been trying to regain control over the violence. They said this includes an announcement that bans weapons at anti-Israeli demonstrations. …… "Arafat will not end the violence against Israel as long as Palestinians are being killed," a PA source said. "The problem is that Arafat's opposition both within Fatah and the Islamic movements are doing their best to continue clashes to ensure more casualties." ……"

<P>

 

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "…… On Monday, October 23 the IDF staged a re-enactment of the October 1 gun battle at Netzarim junction in which 12-year-old Mohammed al Dura was killed…... Soldiers sent to the firing range by the IDF Southern Commander, Major General Yom Tov Samia, stood on top of a dirt embankment and fired shots at the wall and barrel, using a variety of different weapons. ….Two Israeli citizens took part in the re-enactment - Nahum Shahaf, a physicist, and Yosef Duriel, an engineer. ….A film crew from the prestigious American news program "60 Minutes" was there, having been given exclusive rights to film the replay of the Dura shooting. ….."

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "……The dramatic footage of his death has been seen in every corner of the world. Palestinian television runs an edited version - pictures of an IDF soldier shooting have been spliced into the original footage. Poignant photographs of the father and son have been plastered along the sides of roads throughout the West Bank. The Cairo newspaper Akbar al Yom has reported that the city authorities have decided to name the street where the Israeli embassy is located after Mohammed al Dura. ......... "

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "…… Shortly after the boy's death, the IDF acknowledged there was "a high probability" that IDF gunfire ended his young life and, speaking for the IDF, Deputy Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon expressed his sorrow over the tragedy. Assuming that the damage to Israel's reputation was irreversible, and knowing it faced the realities of more children dying, the IDF was inclined to put the al Dura matter to rest. ……However, senior officers in the Southern Command were bitter about Israel's hasty decision to accept responsibility for the death. ….. Two days after the incident, Duriel wrote in Ha'aretz: "The IDF spokesman deserves a prize for stupidity ... Ten minutes after the incident a normal spokesman for a normal army would have released a categorically formulated statement saying that provocateurs opened fire against IDF soldiers, behind the back of a the ambulance driver who tried to save him. All this was done to score propaganda points by depicting murderous behavior on the part of IDF soldiers." …… After Ha'aretz published these remarks, Shahaf phoned Duriel and suggested they investigate whether it was necessarily true that IDF soldiers shot the boy……"

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "…… With regard to Mohammed al Dura, the pair studied the angle of the shots fired by IDF men and concluded that the claims of the boy being killed by Israeli army bullets are dubious. Shahaf, who says he is a reservist in an intelligence division that deals with visual material, left a number of messages for Southern Commander Samia, asking for a meeting. ...... He made his initial call to the major general after learning from the media that the IDF planned to demolish structures around the Netzarim junction. He warned against "erasing" physical evidence at the site - such as the wall and concrete barrel, key pieces of evidence he wanted preserved. He says that when Samia got back to him, it was too late to effect such evidence preservation measures. ….."

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "…… But anyway, the Southern Commander agreed to meet Shaham and Duriel and this took place, Duriel says, on October 19. The two went over their calculations with the IDF major general and urged him to initiate a review. They offered their professional services, gratis. Shahaf emphasizes this was designed as an "impartial" inquiry. ……Shahaf adds that he agreed to one caveat on his independent authority: "The IDF decides when to release the findings." The pair did not get a formal assignment from the army to carry out the task, because of legal complications, Shahaf adds. ...Five days after the meeting with Samia, the first re-enactment was staged at the IDF firing range. As the scene was re-enacted, Duriel gave an interview to the American television crew. ...... When Samia learned about Duriel's interview, he ordered that the engineer be removed from the inquiry. ......Shahaf says "I supported Duriel, but I think he made a tactical error, because you have to prove whatever you allege." ……"

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "……. More tests were arranged - tests Shahaf stresses were done with exacting scientific rigor. "All results will meet the standards of scientific inquiry," he says. He says that he already has final results in hand that are "very interesting." ...... Asked about the professional character of this al-Dura shooting investigation, and about the participants who have taken part in it, the IDF spokesman refused to comment. Shahaf says he has promised not to divulge details, neither about the results of the investigation, nor the testing procedures followed. ……. "

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "…… Among other consultants, Shahaf sought out Yitzhak Ramon, an engineer from Haifa who published a letter in Ha'aretz claiming that the films provide evidence the bullets which struck the father and son weren't fired from the IDF post. Had the shots been fired by the IDF soldiers who were positioned to the side of the Duras, the bullet holes in the wall couldn't have been so circular and "clean," Ramon contended. ………. Charles Enderlin, director of France 2's Israel bureau, raises additional questions concerning the methodology of the IDF inquiry. French television has original footage shot at Netzarim - the film has been shown to Ha'aretz, and it includes shots of what happened at the junction before and after al Dura's death, as well as photographs of the wall and the bullet-ridden concrete barrel taken after the incident, and an interview with the father from a Gaza hospital. This is evidence which is crucial in any investigation of the al Dura death. Shahaf asked Enderlin for permission to use the material, but he didn't mention that his intention was to conduct a professional investigation of the event. Instead, Shahaf presented himself as a media professional. …. Enderlin rejected Shahaf's request. …. Subsequently he was stunned to discover that Shahaf is affiliated with an IDF investigation. He says when the IDF spokesman later phoned and asked to receive the film materials, France 2 said they would be released only under formal court order. ….."

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "……Duriel is angry with the IDF. He can't fathom why the army isn't "publishing the truth." Each day that goes by, he says, increases the damage to Israel's name. …… He hints that the IDF has an interest in holding back the disclosure of the investigation's findings. He also suggests that the IDF has kept concealed from the public a crucial fact - next to the father and son, he claims, there was a second site from which Palestinians fired at the IDF. On Duriel's calculations, the bullets which killed Mohammed al Dura had to have been fired from this second Palestinian position. Asked why the IDF is keeping secret crucial facts which would apparently exonerate its soldiers, Duriel is evasive. "The answer is explosive," he says, refusing to elaborate. …….The IDF has to decide when and how it will release the investigation's results. The army tried to stir some interest among some American journalists in the findings, but the attempt backfired - the professionals were not impressed by what they heard and decided not to use it. ….."

<P>

Ha'aretz 11/7/00 Anat Cygielman "……In choosing Shahaf and Duriel as partners in the al Dura inquiry, the IDF has again shot itself in the foot. Even if the investigation and its conclusions should pass muster on scientific and professional grounds, they simply won't be accepted by the public. That might make little scientific sense - but it's a hard public-relations fact. ……. Duriel's ill-conceived "60 Minutes" interview was a case in point. The police officer, Yossi Almog, put it best: "If you want to release some conclusion that carries weight, it is important that the investigation be carried out by the most professional staff the state can put together." ….."

<P>

Freeper aruanan 11/27/00 "…..The bullet hole that appeared in the wall directly behind the boy after he fell (near the father's right sleeve in the second photo) that was not there before (in another more complete series of photos when the boy was not next to his dad) was too far toward the concrete cistern and too low (as well as having entered at the wrong angle--ie., straight in) to have been made by a shot coming from the IDF position. Also, in the second photo the dad doesn't appear to be in any condition for making numerous cell phone calls requesting ambulance help. ….."<P>

WorldNetDaily.com 12/4/00 David Kupelian "……The following report is excerpted from the December cover story of WorldNetDaily's sister publication, the monthly WorldNet magazine. Readers interested in obtaining the complete, in-depth version of "Who killed Mohammed al-Dura?" -- along with many other exclusive feature stories -- are invited to subscribe to WorldNet at WND's online store. …….<P>

"When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons." <P>

-- Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister from 1969 to 1974 <P>

……The dramatic footage of al-Dura's Sept. 30 death has been broadcast the world over. Palestinian television has created an edited version wherein pictures of an Israeli soldier shooting have been spliced into the original footage. Heart-wrenching photographs of the father and son have been posted alongside roads throughout the West Bank. And Egyptian authorities are reportedly naming the street on which the Israeli embassy is located after Mohammed al-Dura. <P>

...... Lavishing praise specifically on the sacrifice of Palestinian children to the cause, Sabri reflected: "One [child martyr] wrote his name on a note before he died. He wrote: 'the martyr so and so.' In every martyr's pocket we find a note with his name on it. He sentences himself to martyrdom even before he becomes a martyr." …….. The interviewer then asked an incredible question: "Is this why the mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons' death?" ……"They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom," answered the mufti. "It is a great display of the power of belief. The mother is participating in the great reward of the Jihad to liberate Al-Aqsa." <P>

…..In an apparent reference to the widely held belief that martyrs who die killing an infidel will be given 50 virgins in heaven, Sabri added: "I talked to a young man ... [who] said: '... I want to marry the black-eyed [beautiful] women of heaven.' The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage. Such a son must have such a mother." <P>

…..The Jerusalem Post's Oct. 27 edition revealed the shocking aftermath of the violent deaths of some Palestinian children. "Interviewed by journalists after [recent] tragedies, some of the parents of these young victims refer to their children as shahids (martyrs), whose lives were given willingly and proudly to the Palestinian cause in fighting the hated Zionist enemy," wrote Post writer Gerald M. Steinberg. …… "In an unbelievably shocking scene, one mother boasted that she bore her son precisely for this purpose, and the father proudly claimed credit for providing the training. The parents will also receive a sizeable financial 'reward' from the Palestinian Authority," he added. <P>

……. In the aftermath of the Dura shooting, the international media glibly reported that "a French photographer" or "a French television crew" had filmed the tragedy. In reality, although the news organization was French, the photojournalist who actually filmed the shooting was a Palestinian named Talal Abu Rahma, who lives in Gaza. ……..<P>

…….Riccardo Cristiano, Mideast representative for the official state-owned Italian television station, RAI, placed an ad in the Oct. 16 edition of the main Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al Hayat al Jedida, promising he would never think of giving any bad publicity to the Palestinians or their cause……."My dear friends in Palestine," the ad began. "We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah." …. He was referring to the brutal beating and murder by a Palestinian mob of two non-combatant drivers in the Israel Defense Force, at a Palestinian Authority police station in Ramallah. ……. Apologizing for a rival, private Italian television station's filming of the brutal lynchings, he assured readers that it was not the official Italian news media that did so. <P>

……. USA Today ran a story showing how the Palestinian news media have invented "atrocity" stories by reporting supposed Israeli soldier attacks on different Palestinian towns, which upon verification have turned out to be complete fabrications. There have also been reported instances of Palestinian ambulances sent out to pick up fake wounded -- for the sake of eager Western cameras. …… <P>

…….. On Oct. 23, Yosef Doriel, an Israeli engineer, was a key participant in an Israel Defense Force investigation and re-enactment of the Mohammed al-Dura shooting, which attempts to make the case that the 12-year-old boy could not have been shot by IDF soldiers -- but instead fell victim to a cruel plot perpetrated by Palestinian sharp-shooters and a Palestinian television cameraman. <P>

At one of the IDF's southern firing ranges, participants piled up blocks to simulate the wall where the boy and his father were pinned. A concrete barrel was brought in, to represent the one behind which the father and son crouched. <P>

……. "In the video clip, you see four clean bullet holes to the side of them. These were not shot by the Israelis -- they are 'clean' and full holes, not mere grazes that would have been formed by the 30-degree angle of the Israelis -- but rather by Palestinians (stationed more directly in front of the father and son) to make sure that the two would stay put. <P>

"Suddenly, you see the boy lying down in his father's lap, with another bullet hole in the wall directly behind him -- again, it could not have come from the IDF position, which was behind the barrel and to the side, but only from the Palestinian position, which was more directly in front of the father and son. This is the bullet that went through his stomach and out of his back." (See aerial photograph of Netzarim junction with Palestinian and Israeli locations indicated.) <P>

At that point in the video, says Doriel, "you can hear the firing -- but the Israeli position was far away! Rather, what happened was that a Palestinian advanced to a spot very close to the photographer, and shot the fatal shot. You can also notice that at that moment of the fatal shots, the photographer suddenly 'shook' and the picture was blurred -- a signal that the shots came from close to him." <P>

A film crew from CBS' "60 Minutes" was there to capture the re-enactment, and broadcast its report on Nov. 12. The report, titled "The Crossroad," concerned the larger issue of the controversial Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip -- populated by more than one million Palestinians -- and the Israeli army outpost located at the Netzarim junction to protect those settlements. Anchored by Bob Simon, "60 Minutes" characterized the IDF's shooting re-enactment and findings as inconclusive. <P>

And yet, Samia, Doriel and many others who have looked at the evidence have little doubt as to who was responsible for the death of Mohammed al-Dura. ......"The Palestinian forces staged the event," Doriel states emphatically. "The Israelis were firing, for sure -- but the fatal shots came not from them, but from the Palestinian position in front of the boy, behind the cameraman." …….. <P>

"UNCONTESTED FACTS: <P>

* "Confirmed by all sides: Israeli soldiers were confined to one outpost across the junction, at a distance of 110m from the victim and an angle of 30 degrees from the brick wall at the point where the boy and his father took shelter behind a concrete barrel. At this time, Palestinian outposts were dispersed all over the area -- in front and behind the victim. <P>

* "Confirmed by official representative of the Palestinian Authority on channel 2 of Israeli TV -- Oct. 31, 2000: The boy was killed by one bullet which entered his body from the front and left the body from his back (therefore no bullet was found in the boy's body). <P>

* "The cameraman returned to the scene of the event the day after, and confirmed: the barrel behind which the boy took shelter was of concrete (not of sheet metal), therefore no rifle bullet could penetrate it from side to side ("Ha'aretz" newspaper, Nov. 7, 2000). <P>

* "The film taken by the Palestinian cameraman revealed on the wall the only hole of the bullet which penetrated the boy's body. <P>

"CONCLUSIONS: <P>

* "The hole revealed on the brick wall behind the boy's body, after he fell on the pavement, is the only evidence of a bullet which penetrated his body, as declared by the PA representative. <P>

* "The location of the killing bullet-hole is well inside the space protected from Israeli outpost sniper by the concrete barrel. (See Doriel's drawing). <P>

* "The killing bullet-hole could be caused only by a sniper facing the boy from the front (behind the bushes at the back of the cameraman), and the noise recorded by the cameraman before the boy was seen dead was of a very near-by weapon, with a sound quite different from the shooting heard before, from distanced outposts. <P>

* "The armed outposts facing the boy from the front were manned only by Palestinians. Therefore, only they could have killed the boy. The same holds true for the bullets which wounded the boy's father: He was so deeply hidden in the corner between the wall and barrel -- that only bullets shot from the front could hit him, and in no way could they be bullets from the Israeli outpost which was at an angle of 30 degrees from the wall. It was impossible even from an angle of 43 degrees." <P>

…….Despite the understandable protests of Palestinians after the investigation's results were made public, it appears more than likely that Mohammed al-Dura was indeed shot by one of his own. In addition to the forensic and ballistic evidence, Doriel points to a culture that has demonstrated not only the willingness, but the determination to send its young children to the front lines of its "holy war." …….. Doriel doesn't stop there. "Also compatible with Moslem militants' beliefs is that telling outright lies is legitimate -- if they are used against an enemy. Such is the lie they produced and spread worldwide -- to accuse Israeli soldiers as heartless killers of innocent children." ……. And noting that the Palestinian Authority offers $2,000 to every family whose child is killed in the new intifada, Doriel presses his case to the hilt: "This is part of their child-recruitment practice, which is revealed again and again, when their officials order the closing of schools and send pupils of all ages to confront Israeli positions." ……. Child-recruitment is an international crime, he adds, and "Israel has to sue those responsible for it in the proper judicial organs, including the issue of arrest orders against them, wherever they can be caught." ……"<P>

The Guardian (U.K.) 11/28/00 Suzanne Goldenberg in Tel Aviv "……At a Tel Aviv press conference, Major-General Yom-Tov Samia, the commander of Israeli forces in Gaza, where Mohammed al-Durreh was killed on September 30, released the results of an investigation that purports to clear his soldiers of the boy's death. "A comprehensive investigation [sic]conducted in the last weeks casts serious doubts that the boy was hit by Israel defence forces' fire," his report said. "It is quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets." …… Even in Israeli army circles, the investigation has become controversial, disowned by the chief of staff and criticised by MPs for compounding the army's biggest public relations disaster of recent months. ......" <P>

The Guardian (U.K.) 11/28/00 Suzanne Goldenberg in Tel Aviv "……Although the Israeli army apologised days later, and admitted that its soldiers probably killed the boy, Gen Samia argued yesterday that it, and television viewers, all came to the same, wrong conclusion: that his men fired the fatal bullets. …. But Gen Samia's investigation is arguably fatally flawed, since it was conducted under his direct supervision, even though, as Gaza commander, he is the man ultimately responsible for the boy's death. …..He also admitted yesterday that the Israeli army "unintentionally destroyed" crucial evidence from the scene by razing the bullet-scarred concrete water butt and cinderblock wall where father and son vainly sought shelter. …."<P>

The Guardian (U.K.) 11/28/00 Suzanne Goldenberg in Tel Aviv "……It did not interview the Palestinian cameraman who recorded the death for French television. According to Charles Ender lin, the Israeli bureau chief for France 2 TV, it took more than three weeks for investigators to pick up a copy of the video cassette. …… The army built its case on an elaborate re-enactment of the boy's death, for which the cinderblock wall rebuilt, and on analysis of the angle of gunfire, based on frozen images from the footage of Mohammed's death. ….. It also suggests that Jamal al-Durreh was a suspected collaborator, whose death could have been sought by the Palestinians, and blames the father and other locals for failing to rescue the boy. ……"<P>

Ha'aretz. Anat Cygielman "…….Major General Yom Tov Samia, GOC Southern Command, has reversed earlier IDF statements and presented the results of a Southern Command investigation into the high-profile death of 12-year-old Mohammed al Dura at the Netzarim junction two months ago. Though the results are inconclusive, Samia said, the results show that "there is doubt about the possibility that IDF fire hit Mohammed and his father." He added, "it is probable that the boy was hit by Palestinians during a exchanges of fire in the area." ……. During a press conference, Samia pointed out that the investigation was flawed by lack of material evidence, including an autopsy report from the boy's body and full footage of the incident from the France 2 network, which the IDF does not have. Furthermore, the IDF has destroyed buildings at the scene, including the wall Mohammed and his father, Jamal al Dura, were crouching against when they were shot. Israel tore down the buildings a week after the shooting to clear the area of cover used by Palestinian stone-throwers and gunmen in repeated clashes. ……..Based on what evidence the IDF does have, the investigation concluded that the possibility that Mohammed and his father were hit by fire from an IDF position at Netzarim Junction is low. This conclusion is based on bullet angles, measurements, testimony, and the French television footage that shows clearly that the two were hit by automatic fire, not single rounds. According to soldiers' testimony, no one in the position shot automatic fire. Jamal al Dura's statements during television interviews that a bullet in the back hit his son points to a strong possibility that the fire came from Palestinians at the eastern edge of the wall, aimed at the IDF position, Samia said. ….."<P>

Freeper Scutter 11/22/00 from a friend in Israel "……We are comparatively lucky here in Haifa. It has always been a city where Arabs and Jews have gotten along. There is a modus vivendi that has been understood and worked out. We have always patronized Arab restaurants and other Arab merchants. But, suddenly, as a result of the violence and the call to arms by the Arabs in Gaza and the Palestiniam-controlled territories, the Israeli Arabs have also been involved in violent acts, and that is a development that we never anticipated. Suddenly we have a fifth column within the country…….. One day last week, there was incitement to set fires all over Israel, and trees and shrubbery in nearby neiighborhoods were set afire - by Israeli Arabs. An industrial park some miles north of here was broken into and destroyed. Cars not far from here, on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway were attacked by teenagers of an Arab village that borders the road. ……..What I am writing about, you will not have seen or read in any reports of the violence of the past two weeks. ….."<P>

new york times 11/28/00 "…... By contrast, preliminary findings of the investigation, reported in the Israeli press, were more forthright in assigning blame to the Palestinians. That followed an initial assumption that the Israeli Army was responsible. Today the army did not rule out the possibility that one of its soldiers had killed the boy. But General Samia said the army had "great doubt" that it was responsible and believed that the evidence indicated "a very reasonable possibility" that the boy "was hit by Palestinian gunfire." …..But Palestinians reacted immediately and angrily. Since the shooting, on Sept. 30, was filmed in excruciating detail by a France 2 television crew, the boy's death has become the dominant image of the conflict throughout the Arab world. Local and regional television networks have broadcast the scene hundreds of times. Arab poets and songwriters have composed dozens of tributes to the boy's memory. The boy's wounded father, giving interviews from his hospital bed in Amman, Jordan, became a regional celebrity. In one pointed gesture, the avenue in Cairo where the Israeli Embassy is situated was renamed Muhammad al-Durrah Street. "This is a desperate attempt to distort the facts," Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, said today in reaction to the Israeli Army report. "The whole world has seen the pictures, and the pictures speak for themselves." …….But a study of the trajectory of the fire, the army said in its report, "casts serious doubt" on the assumption that Israeli soldiers were the source. The report, released today, is accompanied by schematic diagrams of what the army says were the lines of fire, second-by-second analyses of crucial portions of the France 2 videotape, and aerial photographs of the site. ……"<P>

The Associated Press Mark Lavie "…..The Israeli army reversed itself Monday and said Palestinian gunmen, not Israeli soldiers, probably killed the 12-year-old boy whose death in a firefight was captured by a TV camera and became a symbol, for Palestinians, of Israel's heavy-handed response to their uprising…….An inquiry ordered by the commander of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia, found that it was ``quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets in the course of an exchange of fire.'' …… The findings came nearly two months after Israel's chief of military operations said the shots that killed Mohammed Aldura and seriously wounded his father, Jamal, were ``apparently'' fired by Israelis. ……..At a news conference Monday, Samia said the conclusion of his just-completed inquiry was based on measurements, bullet angles, and evidence that the Palestinian boy was hit by a volley of gunfire while Israeli soldiers were firing only single shots in that direction. ….."<P>

Jerusalem Post 11/28/00 Heidi Gleit "…..- Mohammed Aldura, 12, was most likely killed by a Palestinian policeman and not by IDF fire, according to the results of an IDF investigation that OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yomtov Samia presented to reporters in Tel Aviv yesterday. ……. The investigation's results are not conclusive, but "the possibility that they were shot by Palestinians is higher than that they were shot by Israelis," Samia declared. ……… However, he added that a number of questions about the incident remain, including why Aldura and his father Jamal, 37, of El-Bureij refugee camp in Gaza, came to the intersection when there already had been shooting there for several hours and why they did not flee, as many others did. Samia showed footage of unarmed people fleeing the area near the Alduras on foot during the shooting. ….. Samia also criticized the Palestinian Authority and French television station France 2 for not cooperating with the investigation. The PA rejected a request to conduct a joint investigation and France 2 refused to allow the IDF to examine the footage it had shot at the scene, he said. ……"<P>

Jerusalem Post 11/28/00 Heidi Gleit "…..Samia explained that the investigating team found that soldiers were only shooting from the Magen-3 building and there was a "low probability" that they were capable of hitting the Alduras, who had taken cover behind a wall on the diagonally opposite side of the intersection. ……. An analysis of the bullet holes in the wall behind the two found that the bullets were shot from the area from which Palestinians were shooting, he said. He explained that this analysis was done by studying photographs of the wall during the battle and comparing them to marks made by bullets shot from various angles into a reconstruction of the wall built at a shooting range in the Beersheba area. …… In addition, film of the incident shows that the Alduras were hit by a volley of bullets. However, the IDF soldiers were firing only single shots and did not use automatic fire, Samia said. ….."<P>

Jerusalem Post 11/28/00 Heidi Gleit "…..In an interview with reporters from his hospital bed in Jordan immediately after the incident, Jamal Aldura said that his son had been shot in the back. This would mean that he was shot by Palestinians who were on the eastern side of the wall, Samia said. He then showed a brief film clip of a man in jeans, whom he identified as a PA policeman, and who was shooting in the direction of where the Alduras had taken cover. ………In presenting the conclusions, Samia emphasized that the IDF never had claimed responsibility for Aldura's death. The IDF had expressed regret for the death of a child during the firefight, and the media and PA interpreted this as an admission of responsibility, he said. ……."<P>

</FONT>