Army did not know it was firing at TV crew: Israel

[subsuelo]

Israeli troops were unable to identify Reuters News cameraman Fadel Shana as a journalist before they fired at him from a tank, the Israeli army said on Wednesday, citing the preliminary results of an investigation.

Shana died while filming on a road in central Gaza on April 16. Five other Palestinians also died in the attack.

Shana had been traveling in a vehicle that was marked with large press and TV stickers on the front and sides and was wearing blue body amour with "Press" in large blue letters on a white fluorescent panel on the front.

Responding to repeated requests for an official explanation of the incident, Israeli military spokeswoman Major Avital Leibovich said the army had not yet completed its investigation but would provide a full account as soon as possible.

"The initial investigation showed they were not identified as members of the press," she said.

Reuters

[subsuelo]

1. Lies.

[henank]

3. And you know this...

how?

[subsuelo]

4. You know otherwise?

[atreides1]

5. Maybe The gunner has bad eyes.

Considering that Shana had been traveling in a vehicle that was marked with large press and TV stickers on the front and sides and was wearing blue body amour with "Press" in large blue letters on a white fluorescent panel on the front.

But I tend to agree with you about the lies.

[Lost4words]

2. I wish we could hear the voices internal to Israel.

We are lead to believe there is no internal Israeli opposition to this never ending conflict. I believe there must be some.
8643

[PDJane]

6. Yeah, there is...........

it just doesn't hit the North American press.

[pelsar]

7. not much.....

used to be a lot during intifada I...and hence oslo came about.....

however since the suicide bombers and the gaza pullout and the subsequent actions of the Hamas/Fatah/IJ etc (constant attempts at killing israelis all over israel)....the "left" was faced with reality....pullouts and withdraws seem to bring about more killing not less.

and the example above: many of the Israeli left are from combat units....and have a far better understanding of the what a battlefield looks like...and is less likly to condemn without knowing some of the real facts of the environment.

unlike many here......

[subsuelo]

8. There are plenty of opposition voices

But it's similar to the U.S. where if you say things out of line then you wind up being marginalized and effectively silenced, outside the small percentage of people that are awake and paying attention and see through the lies.

Anyway, start with gush shalom and btselem. Peace now is decent, and the ISM has plenty of support on the 'inside' as well. There is alot of human rights activity, but you're right we just don't hear about it much because peace is not high on the agendas of those with real control and power over the situation.

[pelsar]

9. and you know this......????

gush shalom exists, b'tselem has less and less credibility as they condemn without much proof, peace now lost a lot of support with the suicide bombers and gaza pullout...ISM has virtually no support, except for the anarchists....

if you say things out of line then you wind up being marginalized and effectively silenced,
you dont know much about israel...4 women caused the pullout from lebanon

[subsuelo]

10. As I said

if you say things out of line then you wind up being marginalized and effectively silenced, outside the small percentage of people that are awake and paying attention and see through the lies.

[pelsar]

11. how are they marginalized?

so when the vast majority of the "left" moves their political viewpoint....that means they have "fallen asleep"...or that they all of a sudden started to believe the "lies"......interesting pov, i wonder what happened to them?...drugs?

have they been banned from TV/Radio?...the newspapers no longer print "left viewpoints?....perhaps you can explain how this "marginalization works"?

[subsuelo]

12. I know it's difficult to grasp at first

Start by studying the way most major media outlets frame and construct the debate, or the way they divert attention or suppress certain views from being heard. So for example you rarely would hear the view in Haaretz or in the New York Times that Israel's actions are perhaps just as terrorist as Hamas and can no longer be considered justifiable. Which is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Now perhaps you may disagree with it and I would understand that too. But since that view is effectively shut out from the debate entirely, people end up not giving it much credence and the status quo continues. Why are certains views targeted for marginalization? To ensure that elite interests are promoted. Please don't pretend like Israel is somehow immune to media manipulation.

[pelsar]

13. now i get it...

that Israel's actions are perhaps just as terrorist as Hamas

so if that viewpoint isnt heard in israel...that means that those who believe in it are being "shut out'?.......

perhaps you might want to get educated?.....after the suicide bombers appeared, the left....moved to the center, gaza only cemented it. The whole thesis of land for peace was blown up in front of our face as our kids/friends were blown up on busses, in restaurants etc.

this may be hard to grasp..but since much of the left is traditionally made up of combat soldiers,...i would guess that the vast majority of them dont consider themselves terrorists who go around trying to kill as many Palestinians civilians as possible....which is what hamas does.

the israeli press is far less manipulated than that of the States......you would probably be surprised to know that Palestenains are interviewed on israeli TV and this would include wanted terrorists (or are they too being manipulated?).

and btw where did you even get the idea that the ISM has support in israel?.....sources please (this should be interesting....)

[subsuelo]

14. That was one example of a marginalized viewpoint, yes.

I am in no need of explanation that Israel's terrorism really isn't terrorism, thanks.

Regarding the ISM, surely you are not trying to say that ISM has no support whatsoever inside Israel?

[pelsar]

21. ISM ....no support

the anarchists might support them....but thats about it.....why is that surprising?

[notfullofit]

22. As I peruse these threads

you seems quite knowledgeable and credible, is it OK to ask, do you live in Israel?

[pelsar]

24. living in israel...

since 1986....born/raised in Det, Michigan

[notfullofit]

25. Thank you,

for replying, I assumed as much with your level of inside information.

[msmcghee]

15. There is no proof of anything at this point. There is certainly no basis to say . .

. . that either side is lieing for sure. However, I would say that if you are in an active war zone with ongoing battles in the vicinity and you raise a large object to your shoulder and point it a tank - you will probably be dead within a few seconds if the tank crew is properly trained and is doing their job.

[azurnoir]

16. There is one thing

it has been documented that Fadal Shana's camera was not shoulder mounted as the claim goes, but was tripod mounted.

"The last few seconds of video shot on Shana’s tripod-mounted camera show the tank firing, then a midair explosion consistent with the burst of a missile.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/19/8393/

The link is from commondreams, but the original story is from Reuters

[msmcghee]

17. I have carefully examined dozens of photos and videos . .

. . of the scene, the bodies, the red crescent crews, the fire crew, etc at the scene in the immediate aftermath. I have never seen one picture of a tripod - although I could have missed it. I have seen several pictures of people carrying his camera - without a tripod.

All video (and most still) cameras, even the smallest, are equipped with a place to mount the camera to a tripod - and virtually all video cameras used for news coverage are also capable of being shoulder mounted.

Perhaps you have some evidence that he was shooting from a tripod - other than the CommonDreams article where that was claimed - but where no photos or other evidence was provided. If you examine the actual footage you will see that the camera is not very steady and the image bounces around while the camera is running.

http://front-line.blogspot.com/2008/04/video-of-israeli-killing-reuter.html

I'd appreciate links to any actual evidence that indicates his camera was mounted on a tripod at the time he died.

[azurnoir]

18. I already provided the link

or are you claiming that Reuters is lying? as to claims that the footage from Fadal Shana's camera is "jumpy" only the first few seconds of the footage is from that camera, that being the shot of the tank in the distance and it was quite smooth.

[msmcghee]

19. This is not a terribly important concern because . .

. . there are both shoulder fired and tripod mounted anti-tank weapons systems readily available on the world market and Israeli tank crews were no doubt familiar with any possible weapons systems that could be used against them.

However, just because Reuters says it in an article is not independent evidence for it. Reuters has photo-shopped dozens of photos and published them in the past - all characteristically doctored to make Israel appear more bloodthirsty and craven and the Palestinians (and Lebanese) more as poor victims of the IDF. I asked for any actual evidence and not some writer's unsupported opinion published by a known biased source.

[azurnoir]

20. msmcghee your response

is if nothing else predictable, you claim now tripod mounted IED's, a tripod would make them less portable and there for "kill" the purpose for which thy are designed, but if you say so.
And then the very expected challenge of Reuters veracity, of course dredging up the obvious to the naked eye, so obvious I can even tell you what Photo Shop tool was used, photo's from Beirut 2 years ago which Reuters apologized for and retracted. Now you claim that the video was edited, any evicdence other than hat you don't like what it implies?

photo shopped photo's of Beirut (link from PJ's media link of yours BTW)

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&

[msmcghee]

23. You are the one who claimed that the video shots . .

. . were from a tripod mounted camera and you quoted the Reuters/Common Dream article as evidence for that. I only said that anti-tank missiles come in both shoulder and tripod mount versions. I have actually fired the tripod mount missiles myself so I should know a little about that. Here is a YouTube clip of a Spike anti-tank tripod mount missile destroying a tank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtp7HjK0JIc

And here's another example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okQgKj_viCA&feature=related

******************************************************

I did not say that because Reuters has a bad record of doctoring photos that this proves they are lying this time. I only asked if you had any independent evidence. I will accept your response as a "no".

BTW - there are far more than one incident of Reuters using both staged and photo-shopped images to make Israel look bad.

***************

What you (and several others here) seem to have no appreciation for is the reality of war and combat. I don't expect this post to provide that education - but if you were in a tank looking through your gun-sight and you saw someone two km away crouched next to a stopped vehicle in the middle of nowhere on a country road - and that person looked in any way like they could be preparing to shoot an anti-tank weapon at you - then you would not think twice. You would kill that person and you would believe that if you did not kill them immediately that you would probably be dead in a few seconds.

This was an active combat zone and three IDF soldiers had been killed earlier that morning by an ambush in that same area. It makes absolutely no difference if the TV markings were visible on the vehicle or not - although the photos from the scene and the direction of the tank show that they probably were not visible. Many times in the past Palestinian militants have pretended to be Red Crescent workers, IDF personal and even news crews.

Aside from all that - the basic facts remain. If you were in a tank and you saw someone at a distance aiming something at your tank you would kill them first and ask questions later.

I don't know what actually happened because all the information is not available yet. I am only saying that, based on the evidence we have seen so far, and based on the nature of existing weapons systems and the zone of active conflict they were in, there is no justification for a claim that the IDF murdered this journalist - and there are many reasons to suspect that this was simply a tragedy that was the result of the extreme danger of making your living in war zones where people are killing each other while trying to stay alive themselves.

Maybe we'll know more after the IDF releases their report - maybe not.

************************

One small additional point. IED's are "improvised explosive devices" and I doubt you'd ever find one mounted to a tripod.

[azurnoir]

26. First you seem to conflate

what a foot soldier hiding the bushes might see with what a tank crew sees, do you actually think tanks use human sighting these days? The excerpt is from an article on the Merkava 4 tank.

The tank is equipped with a modern fire control and sighting system which includes computerized ballistic calculations and compensations, a dual axes stabilized gunner sight and a dual axis stabilized commander panoramic sight, both equipped with an advanced FLIR and TV channels for day and night operation. The system is equipped with an improved tracking system which enables tracking of moving targets, such as tanks, helicopters, vehicles or soldiers.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/n/namer_aifv.htm

Then you use the "they did it once" of course without any proof, so they will do it again or Israel then has a right to shoot any vehicle it chooses, no matter how marked.
On the proof I did find one incidence of a vehicle marked TV being used in an attempted attack 2 years ago.

[msmcghee]

27. I think we've taken this about as far is it deserves. n/t

[hack89]

28. They are not magic telescopes

with magic properties to see everything in perfect detail. Look at the entire litany of friendly fire incidents in Desert Storm and IOF and tell me that they are infallible. The fog of war is still present.

[msmcghee]

29. Just to be clear . .

. . I was really asking for some evidence in the form of photos, links or something. I wasn't just trying to discredit your assertion. I've started a bookmark folder for links on this as I find it interesting to look back at what various sources say about these events as time goes by and if they correct their narrative as new information is released. If there's other or prior evidence that he was using a tripod it would be useful to know when that info came out and who published it. I've already linked most of the Reuters stuff.