Cute, but the point is, you didn't see who fired the shots at him on TV and neither did anyone else. Both sides were flinging bullets that day. Now, you tell me which side had more to gain from having a Palestinian kid get shot on live TV.

While you're answering that last question, be sure to factor in a political philosophy that sees nothing wrong with wrapping nail-laden explosives around teenagers and sending them into packed crowds of shoppers and others to blow themselves up.

Some people won't connect the dots even if you haul them together with a tractor.

Check out this site.

Is this source biased? You bet your ass it's biased. Don't think I've ever seen a site MORE biased. "Masada.org," for Pete's sake. But most of the anti-Israel sites on this subject are equally biased in the other direction. That doesn't bother you, does it?

That photo sequence does make it look an awful lot like these two were being shot at by someone near the cameraman, although I can see that the bullet holes in the second shot would not have been visible in the first one even if they had already been there.

The Israeli report on the incident is here. Biased? Maybe. But angles are angles.

And remember, Palestinians have routinely killed their own kids or put them in danger for much less political advantage than they got from the death of this kid. To me, this makes the Palestinians at least as likely as suspects as the IDF, if not more so.

This information, of course, will bounce off you like a ping-pong ball off a battleship ("Israel=lies, Palestinians=truth"), but others here might find it informative.