Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

good for them...double standards if you ask me.

good they cleared the tank crew?

good they shoot at people with clear press markings waving white flags?

good that no information that the Israelis don't want shown of their occupation of Gaza gets out?

Originally posted by inimalist
good they cleared the tank crew?

good they shoot at people with clear press markings waving white flags?

good that no information that the Israelis don't want shown of their occupation of Gaza gets out?

I was just speaking on behalf of President Bush...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I was just speaking on behalf of President Bush...

ah, my mistake

yay oversensitivity

There's only one kind of person that considers a camera "hostile". Not to mention, flechette rounds fired from a tank are excessive beyond all measure.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's only one kind of person that considers a camera "hostile".

Chinese?

Does anyone see a possible way for Reuters to get justice here?

I mean, ok, benefit of the doubt and all for the tank crew, though I agree with Sym 2000%, but like, they aren't going to get a day in court, they get nothing...

The Israeli army said its own actions were ok, I guess that is supposed to be good enough? lol, oh, and it is interesting that the tank was able to identify both the blue flack jackets being worn by the press and the tripod that the camera was mounted on, but not the camera or the clear press markings on the car.

Well, that means no one can try the wolf in cheeps clothing trick.

I'm not surprised, though.

which makes it ok that members of the military target civilian press agents

You are an idiot if you expect soldiers to take time to 100% be certain about a threat before firing. That sort of thinking gets the soldiers killed.

indeed

in all the presented situations above, the immediate danger to soldiers is oh so very clear



my position is clearly not that these people were killed by mistake, in fact, I'd argue the Israeli military was 100% sure who they were firing on

Mistake or not, I believe they should be reprimanded for their actions.

Ush, this seems like pretty deliberate targeting.

Errr... no it doesn't? Nor is the FPA or Reuters claiming that.

Something wrong with you guys here, I think.

did you watch the third video I posted?

This scenario needs to be viewed in a larger scope, ie, the scope where Israeli snipers shoot a man in the neck who is waving a white flag and clearly labeled as a press agent

or in the second video, where an Israeli sniper wounds and continues to shoot at the legs of a fallen camera man. To the point where the legs need to be amputated.

or the fact that the Israeli tank was able to identify the blue press flack jackets being worn by Shana, but not the even clearer press markings on his vehicle?

remember, in none of these situations are the military saying that they mistook the reporters for people pretending to be the press, they said a camera and press jacket were threatening.

EDIT: where does it say that reuters doesn't think it was deliberate... it seems to say they are disappointed in the military's response and thinks they were at least negligent...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are an idiot if you expect soldiers to take time to 100% be certain about a threat before firing. That sort of thinking gets the soldiers killed.

Absolutely!


If only Reuters as a whole would descend into oblivion now...

I was recently in Israel and at one point, I was extremely close to the Lebanese border. There are signs (all around) in Hebrew, Arabic and English specifically stating that Israel tanks and military operations are not to be filmed and it is dangerous to do so.

The reason, terrorist groups often disguise themselves as tourist and reporters for the reason of taking pictures for reconnaissance and planning future attack.

Jews ****ed his shit up though, dude must have juiced his pants when he saw the muzzle-flash.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was recently in Israel and at one point, I was extremely close to the Lebanese border. There are signs (all around) in Hebrew, Arabic and English specifically stating that Israel tanks and military operations are not to be filmed and it is dangerous to do so.

The reason, terrorist groups often disguise themselves as tourist and reporters for the reason of taking pictures for reconnaissance and planning future attack.

Jews ****ed his shit up though, dude must have juiced his pants when he saw the muzzle-flash.



Originally posted by dadudemon
...that means no one can try the wolf in sheeps clothing trick.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are an idiot if you expect soldiers to take time to 100% be certain about a threat before firing. That sort of thinking gets the soldiers killed.

they could have backed away and deployed recon. if the article is correct they could have simply thrown it in reverse out of sight. nobody would have been endangered. no tank crew, no civilians, and yes god forbid no terrorists either but safety has a price.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was recently in Israel and at one point, I was extremely close to the Lebanese border. There are signs (all around) in Hebrew, Arabic and English specifically stating that Israel tanks and military operations are not to be filmed and it is dangerous to do so.

The reason, terrorist groups often disguise themselves as tourist and reporters for the reason of taking pictures for reconnaissance and planning future attack.

Jews ****ed his shit up though, dude must have juiced his pants when he saw the muzzle-flash.

Originally posted by dadudemon


so you would be fine with the Israeli military opening fire on tourists or any other person whom a terrorist might impersonate?

Originally posted by inimalist
so you would be fine with the Israeli military opening fire on tourists or any other person whom a terrorist might impersonate?

I don't really have a bleeding heart for this like you do.......................................(yes...that long of a pause)...............however, I think your question is very misplaced in my direction. You've misinterpreted my reason for posting the "yes" smilie.

I was simply pointing out that Robtard said something similar to what I had said earlier...


Here's some other words: even wearing a disguise won't save you if you're a badguy because the military is bustin' caps into innocents.

It's tragic, and the way it was written would at least imply that the soldiers fired too quickly, but it is a pretty stressful situation to be in if you think that someone might target your tank with an anti-tank missile.

Nonetheless, the car quite clearly stating TV and the vests apparently being very common Press vests, maybe should have demanded more causion.

As I said, it is quite tragic, and it is easy to see Israel as the bad guy, with the amount of civilians they kill, but from a national standpoint I guess "foreign civilians and press people rather than our soldiers" is the only reasonable approach.

i would understand if they were not in the position to quickly take safe cover, or even cornered. however the article states that they were not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's tragic, and the way it was written would at least imply that the soldiers fired too quickly, but it is a pretty stressful situation to be in if you think that someone might target your tank with an anti-tank missile.


indeed, and if this were the only situation I would have to accept that answer as well

however, taken with numerous other instances of aggression from the Israelis against reporters, ESPECIALLY the 3rd video I posted where the reporters leave the building carrying a white flag and clearly unarmed.

This is, imho, not an isolated incident, and is evidence of a policy against the press by the Israeli military.

And no, I have pretty much no better evidence than an Al Jazeera documentary, and I bet they aren't biased against Israel.

No rules in love and war, right? Hell, everyone is at risk of being killed in a war if they are . . . in a war. That sucks the cameraman got killed, but if I were him, I would have passed on that gig to begin with. Like I said though, that sucks. Whoever shot him is a bastard.

Originally posted by inimalist
so you would be fine with the Israeli military opening fire on tourists or any other person whom a terrorist might impersonate?


Obviously no. But I don't believe that the tank crew just said "hey, let's fire on that camera crew for fun" though. Considering the area and history of attacks, they made a choice they thought was defending themselves and they litterally blew it. In short, they ****ed up and innocent people died.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously no. But I don't believe that the tank crew just said "hey, let's fire on that camera crew for fun" though. Considering the area and history of attacks, they made a choice they thought was defending themselves and they litterally blew it. In short, they ****ed up and innocent people died.

fair enough

obviously we disagree on the intent of the tank crew

I do see the situation as tough for the Israelis, but there is enough history on their side to make me question their benevolence.

Its not like they use modern military technology and precision weapons to bomb apartment complexes full of civilians in order to kill democratically elected officials...

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

obviously we disagree on the intent of the tank crew

I do see the situation as tough for the Israelis, but there is enough history on their side to make me question their benevolence.

Its not like they use modern military technology and precision weapons to bomb apartment complexes full of civilians in order to kill democratically elected officials...

If you really think they knew it was a news crew, what motive do you think they had to fire then? Fun? Revenge? Boredom? What?

I suppose the trouble is that intent is so hard to prove in these kind of cases, particularly when proper, unbiased examination of the case is pretty unheard of.

Though my opinion on the matter, is that whether there was intent there or not - the offenders should most definitely be reprimanded for their negligence (as I earlier voiced, sorry to reiterate).

Originally posted by Robtard
If you really think they knew it was a news crew, what motive do you think they had to fire then? Fun? Revenge? Boredom? What?

policy of the Israeli military to target Palestinian civilians and press

One of the contenders for leadership of Ehud Olmert's party was a military leader who once said he wanted 10 palestinians dead in each occupied territory every day. Military checkpoints constantly have reports of abuses of civilians and press.

I guess systemic corruption and permissiveness is a much more plausible explanation... but ya, im biased on this one

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I suppose the trouble is that intent is so hard to prove in these kind of cases, particularly when proper, unbiased examination of the case is pretty unheard of.

aye, even though noone is making the accusation, I sort of wanted to put down that I know I have a very biased opinion on this one, so ya, objectivity is very difficult... and i realize i might sound like a lunatic

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Though my opinion on the matter, is that whether there was intent there or not - the offenders should most definitely be reprimanded for their negligence (as I earlier voiced, sorry to reiterate).

agreed, I think this is probably the most reasonable position to have

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously no. But I don't believe that the tank crew just said "hey, let's fire on that camera crew for fun" though. Considering the area and history of attacks, they made a choice they thought was defending themselves and they litterally blew it. In short, they ****ed up and innocent people died. In short.

Is a TV camera big enough to hide a rocket launcher or any sort of anti-tank weapon?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is a TV camera big enough to hide a rocket launcher or any sort of anti-tank weapon?

Sniperfire...he could probably see what the man was holding...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Sniperfire...he could probably see what the man was holding...

Sniper vs Tank. Odds are not really in favor of the sniper.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Sniperfire...he could probably see what the man was holding...

The tank didn't "sniper" (if that's what you meant?), it fired a shell.

I don't blame them.

If you're in a war and you see someone pointing an object that looks like a rocket launcher at you, you fire first.

Originally posted by inimalist
policy of the Israeli military to target Palestinian civilians and press

One of the contenders for leadership of Ehud Olmert's party was a military leader who once said he wanted 10 palestinians dead in each occupied territory every day. Military checkpoints constantly have reports of abuses of civilians and press.

I guess systemic corruption and permissiveness is a much more plausible explanation... but ya, im biased on this one


If that were policy, there would be daily incidents like this. Just sounds like anti-Israeli propoganda. "They eat Arab children!" and whatnot.

Who was this and when did he say it, during a war? I'm also assuming he didn't win leadership.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that were policy, there would be daily incidents like this.

There may not be daily, but they are very frequent. To expand beyond the scope of just journalists, there are daily reports of human rights abuses at checkpoints, and policies like army bulldozers used to destroy civilian homes or walling in people can be seen, at the very least, as a army policy of callous indifference toward the Palestinians. EDIT: Shooting Back, a program by an Israeli human rights organization, gives hundred of cameras to Palestinians in order for them to report the abuses they see around them; http://www.btselem.org/English/Video/Index.asp

I even stepped back off "official policy" in my last post, as it is something I can't prove and is admittedly extreme. I think however it is very fair to say that there is at least a substantial portion of the Israeli military, who for racial, religious or paranoid purposes, acts to humiliate and kill civilian palestinians and journalists and who know they act with complete immunity, if not tacit approval, from their superiors.

I'm interested in seeing how this turns out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/21/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

I guess I have to confess that likely there are just as many members of the Israeli military who are interested in peace and treat Palestinians with respect as there are those who I describe above.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just sounds like anti-Israeli propoganda. "They eat Arab children!" and whatnot.

I'd like to think what I say is a little bit more informed than what they broadcast on Al-Aqsa.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who was this and when did he say it, during a war? I'm also assuming he didn't win leadership.

Shaul Mofaz, former Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (this was his position at the time of the statement), in 2001 during an army briefing.

He is currently 2nd, and a strong contender for the win, in the upcoming Kadima party leadership election in September when Ehud Olmert steps down.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/candidate-who-wants-olmerts-job-once-sought-deaths-of-70-palestinians-a-day-882628.html

I don't see how it being during a war makes much of a difference, especially when the Arab narrative is "occupation" ie: constant war.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is a TV camera big enough to hide a rocket launcher or any sort of anti-tank weapon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-7_Saxhorn

used by Hezbollah

actually, a bunch of tripod mounted anti-tank weapons that one might mistake a camera for

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/in0546/lsn2.htm

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-7_Saxhorn

used by Hezbollah

Well now I feel silly. But it probably makes someone posing as a camera man a serious enough threat to warrant a good deal of caution.

ya, I hadn't seen that before today...

If i was an Israelite, i would think that the cameraman was filming me to report back to the palestinans and get some dough that way, apart from gettng paid from Reuters as well.

What that cameraman was filming, could have been documentary. What that cameraman was filming, could have been enemy recon. It just depends on your pov.

As for the Press with the flack jackets, what could stop a kamikazee from packing a flack jacket with explosives and daubing "T.V." on it?

yes, and what could possible stop a 6 year old palestinian girl from stuffing her teddy bear with c4

SHES GOT A BEAR!!!! OPEN FIRE!!!!

People have used mock-camera gear as a disguise to attack in the past. I would assume it is one of the reasons for the signs saying "no photography allowed".