Posted on 06/25/2009 11:59:47 AM PDT by SolidWood
Makes you wonder who is more barbaric.
Exactly.....you're the only FReeper that has mentioned this very important point. Apparently, You Can See, good posts FRiend.
Fog of war?
Yeah, but he's allowed to.
Liberty in general and this site in particular are all about that.
You’re making waaaaaay too much sense. :)
bump
It seems beyond doubt that Neda’s death was genuine. But when an event like that occurs and takes the world by storm, the press ought to be proactive in addressing any discrepancies or disconnects in the story. Life’s messy, impromptu video life is full of discrepancies, but you would hope a reporter would note them and inquire. You fill in the gaps reasonably and the likely answers are usually the correct ones; nevertheless, the reporter should have asked.
Careful, someone might think that a snarkism.
First of all, when someone posts a thread and I then post to it, that post is not necessarily addressed to the author of post 1 specifically, and even if it were, they are not obliged to reply, particularly when I've not asked them any questions. When I write that I got an impression of something from a news article, it would seem clear what that means to anyone with a basic command of English. I do not have the time or desire to ponder what he means by "What's an impression?" and supply all possible responses. Then comes a complaint that my statement about my impression is hard to respond to. Is that my problem? No.
Hard to believe anyone finds anything to fuss over here. Yes, this site is about liberty, and also about basic civility. You will need a real fine comb to pull up incivility from my posting history. We ought not engage in childish infighting, and I do my best to ignore that sort of thing.
HAND.
I could be wrong but her family did bury her, what was forbidden was any memorial services at the mosque, eulogizing etc., basically any public gathering.
I have a lot of questions about the doctor’s testimony - most especially this detail about the shooter being caught by the crowd, and then let go.
And NeigborB, who is perfectly entitled to scrutinise this acccount, is not the only individual to find some odd features - The London Times, in its recent article about Dr Hejazi, totally eliminates all references to the capture of the shooter. That is a sign that the editor might have some reservations.
We have been told, up until now, that she was shot by an unidentified sniper on a roof.
Her injuries do not support that story - as noted on this thread, she appears to have been shot at close range by a handgun. If she was shot by a high-powered rifle she would have dropped immediately - even a deer or a horse shot from a far distance will do so. A slight woman would be knocked right off her feet, instantly, by the shot, and not helped to lie down by others assisting her, as we see in the video.
So ... the shooter then came down off the roof and was seen by crowd. Presumably, they spotted him because he was carrying the gun? But if he had a gun, and had just killed someone, would he have let himself be captured by a crowd?
The problems with that story are numerous.
Added to which, despite excellent quality footage of the shooting, no footage of the shooter being captured. They have his i.d. and his photo Dr Hejazi tells us. If they publish that, then all questions about this incident will be answered. The killer will then be one of the most famous murderers of our time ... So it depends if they can show his i.d.
A slight woman would be knocked right off her feet, instantly, by the shot, and not helped to lie down by others assisting her, as we see in the video.
I guess you haven't seen Mythbusters, where they shot a pig carcass dangling by the barest edge with a high-power rifle and it didn't flinch. It finally fell down when a big fat rifle bullet shattered the leg bone that connected it to the hook.
People only get "knocked right off their feet" in movies.
As for "rooftop sniper," someone somewhere among the billions of people in the world probably said "I suspect she was shot by a rooftop sniper," and then someone else somewhere else left off the first two words when they quoted.
Thanks, I was starting to wonder! :)
Life's messy, journalism these days is messier still. Instead of asking pertinent questions, the interviewer let that man ramble on and on about his feelings, his why-not-me, his guilt at surviving (and he's supposed to be a doctor AND a writer...you'd expect a doctor to be more, well, clinical; and a writer to be more original).
And FWIW, in the video I saw, there was blood on the ground at her feet, yet none right under her chin, suggesting a shot from high above that proceeded through her to the pavement. But, she could have fallen forward and bled out; the answers are in those unfilmed earlier seconds.
In any case, if the incident had been faked, the Iranian authorities would have exposed it by now, and they are not disputing it at all.
It's just hard to overlook all those discrepancies and loose ends after 19 minutes of eyewitness account.
Like you said, "life's messy." If you see discrepancies, apply Occam's Razor. Hundreds of people have been shot by government thugs in Iran, so the simplest explanation is that Neda is just one more.
For later
Works for me.
People are still speculating about the grassy knoll, and how Benazir Bhutto died.
I was wrong. You are correct. All sources now say that her family buried her remains.
Somewhere there must be balance between the style of the BBC , and the style of ABC.
Frankly, I'd rather hear the subject, and watch the subject while they talk. I get much more information.
This 'loaded question' game that our US MSM plays, with a limited and edited response, is ridiculous.
No problem with being skeptical. Just yesterday, many posters were convinced the video of Neda being shot and dying was a fake.
We have been told, up until now, that she was shot by an unidentified sniper on a roof.
There were several references to a roof sniper, at first. The Dr. even said it himself. BUT, you have to listen to his whole interview, and listen carefully. He said they THOUGHT it was a sniper on the roof. The sniper was supposedly in an alleyway, between some buildings. A shot from there would echo all around, and could give some the perception it came from 'above'. Remember the Death of JFK and the descriptions of where the shots came from?
Anyway, (remember this guy is speaking English, which is not his native language), he goes on to explain they find the shooter in an alleyway. He didn't STATE that his earlier remark was now INVALID. I think he assumed WE would understand. I did.
Her injuries do not support that story
No, they don't. Other statements he made correlate to her injuries. He mentioned plastic (rubber?) bullets. If shot at close range with one of these, could it do this damage? Leave no exit wound? Why did the sniper (allegedly) say , over and over, "I didn't mean to kill her"? Was it because he thought the plastic bullets wouldn't cause a mortal wound?
So ... the shooter then came down off the roof and was seen by crowd.
I explained this. It's an incorrect assumption. Just because it 'sounded' like he was on the roof, or there were some snipers 'seen' on roofs, doesn't mean this guy came running down from the safety of the roof, just so the crowd could grab him.
Added to which, despite excellent quality footage of the shooting, no footage of the shooter being captured.
I don't know if I'd call it 'quality footage', but you raise a good question. The Dr. does state that multiple protesters took 'pictures' (could be video, likely cellphone) of him.
Maybe they are worried that the person who posts it will end up dead. The Dr. had the 'ability' (money and influence) to be able to flee Iran, before he opened his mouth.
If you like entire , unedited, informative (and scary as hell) interviews, here is one for you.
(I hope I’m not boring you with something you have already seen)
Yuri Bezmenov
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
Because it was dead. A propped up corpse doesn't mind being shot. A living being standing on its feet collapses immediately under the impact of a hunting or sniper rifle. The only exceptions I have ever heard of are charging wild boar - they have a strength and body mass which is astonishing, and sometimes need several rounds to bring them to the ground.
People only get "knocked right off their feet" in movies.
There is a video at this link of an iraqi insurgent who is shot by a sniper. See how fast he goes down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qHJ72MlPQ
There are also videos of deer being shot, of Juba the sniper killing US troops, etc. In each case, if someone takes a round from a high velocity weapon anywhere in the upper body, they drop immediately.
In this thread, several people give opinions as to why they believe Neda must have been killed by a handgun, and I am inclined to agree with that. It is not a wild conspiracy theory, it is consistent with what we see in the film.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.