Posted on 04/17/2008 5:17:25 AM PDT by Alouette
Reuters footage released on Wednesday shows the final moments of agency cameraman Fadel Shana as he films an IDF tank firing, moments before apparently being hit by the shell.
Subsequent footage shows the Reuters jeep on fire, and Shana's body lying next to it. Shana's jeep was marked "press" and witnesses said the cameraman was wearing an identifying flak jacket.
Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger has called for an investigation of Wednesday's incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Ohhhhhhhh, dayum! LMBO!
Jimmy Carter laid a wreath on Arafat’s tomb the other day. Did he also pour some syrup on Rachel Corrie’s short stack?
TV=Terrorist Vehicle
What was he doing among the terrorists except looking for some good anti-Israel propaganda footage? Looks likw he got what he deserved.
ROTFLMAO!
You embed with the enemy, you’re on your own. You embed with us, you’re on your own! Moral of the story: You are on your own when you embed.
A fitting target, since the press is generally the enemy!
Sounds to me like they pressed him real good....
The standard crew drill for US tank gunners is to scan and engage targets using the thermal sight, which is usually more accurate than the ‘day’ (normal 3x or 10x sight). I’ve no doubt Israeli tank crews do something similar. A bubba holding smoething on his shoulder is going to look like an RPG or ATGM. Problem is for the propaganda makers over there is this: if his vehicle had really been hit by a tank round, it would have been obliterated...along with anyone nearby. These bodies are intact...
I think this was faked.
Regards,
1956. The Israelis generally consider the Kadesh Campaign of that year to have been their first real tank fight. I found out in 1973 that they do it a good deal differently than the way I learned the treadhead buisness at Ft Knox in 1966.
Their way is not better, not worse, and they obviously turn out a very qualified tank crewdawg. But it is a different way of doing things, better suited to the Israeli situation.
Rule one: Don't go down range when the range is Hot !
Looks like good shooting to me...
>>”That just looks staged from every angle.”
Agreed: If you look at the vid cam (near the end of the clip) it seems to have not a scratch, except that the glass cover of the lens is punctured in 2 or 3 places. The question is, how did those holes get there?
1. Something hit the glass cover from in front of the camera.
2. The holes may well have been by a rock, hammer, pointy stick; wielded by the Propaganda Ministry of HAMAS.
3. They MIGHT have been caused by a round from a tank.
4. Tanks generally fire two types of round.
. A. “kinetic energy” rounds.
.. 1. Sabot. These are a very dense projectile encased in a sabot. One projectile at very high velocity. If one of these hit the camera, it would probably have been vaporized. These rounds are designed to punch through tank armor.
.. 2. Fleschette. Consists of multiple darts. I believe these are short range anti-personnel. Probably would not be used at the range apparent in the clip.
. B. Exploding rounds.
. . 1. HEAT. A shaped charge which explodes when it hits the target. meant to make a hole in tank armor.
. . 2. Anti-personnel. Intended to explode near the enemy,and make shrapnel.
The only rounds which might have caused the punctures in the glass lens cover are the exploding rounds. These have one obvious characteristics: They explode. To break the lens cover,(and cause no other visible damage) they MUST have exploded in FRONT of the camera.
If the camera (with the punctures) actually was the camera which took the scene at the start of the clip, and was being held by the alleged deceased, there MUST have been an explosion IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA! But, the first scene ends with a blue screen, no hint of any explosion. It seems unlikely that the camera sensed that an explosion would occur soon, and committed preemptive suicide.
It seems likely that this clip is actually a propaganda piece with only minimal connection to objective reality.
DG
“Lie down with terries, get up ...er...take a dirt nap.” (Forest Dump)
LOL!!
OR.....
When you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Look at the video of the target vehicle. The windshield is pushed in, not out as would be expected if it was hit by a tank shell. In fact, I would expect little of the vehicle to be intact. The video also says the locals claim it was an air strike.
The motto is, when you hang out with roaches, dont be surprised that you get sprayed.
Sure doesn't look like a normal-sized tank shell explosion for the windshield to still be on the truck.
BARF. Either the media is impartial or it isn't. Choose one answer and if it can't be objective, choose a side. Don't complain when you throw your lot in with Nazi Germany and are defeated.
Playing more of the video. Says he stepped out of the vehicle to get footage of the dead men when he was hit.
Do the insurgents in Iraq EVER kill Western journalists?
BASIC facts were incorrectly reported.
The vehicle (as seen in the video) was marked TV, not PRESS.
WORDS mean things.
And the narrator mentions that the Reuters CREW was fired upon. Who else was with the gunned man and why does this get reported as an unknown mystery?
I read that 2 other men were also killed. The video shows men on bicycles laying down. Local said they were killed in airstrikes.
Who were the other Reuters staffers?
They ALL looked posed. I’m sorry but I’ve got to call bullsh!taki on this one as well. As the mythbusters would say, BUSTED!
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.