The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 >
>>
This doesn't look right

For some reason, the following photo, taken from the scene of a supposed Israeli missile strike that hit a REUTERS truck, does not look like missile damage to me...

I'll be working on pulling more photos off of the wire today, and will post them to this article as soon as I get a chance. Until then, what do my military readers think of this photo?

UPDATE 12:29 EST: I dunno, maybe I'm being a little bit too jumpy here. Is this a normal "missile hole" for a heavily armoured SUV? It still doesn't look like typical damage from an Israeli missile to me, though. Is there any chance that it was fired by one of our typical militants? Noticce what this gentleman is carrying, for instance. This is, to my recollection, a rocket launcher, is it not? And this kind of rocket is capable of puncturing armored cars, but wouldn't be nearly as powerful as a missile would be.

I'm thinking that the Palestinians launched a rocket from a balcony somewhere, just to incite some international condemnation. As usual.

UPDATE 20:50 EST: I've posted the pictures of the "victims" and their entourage on the wires. I don't want to be too rash, but from the looks of these pictures alone, I'm leaning towards this whole event being staged. I've also noted that Powerline is way ahead of me here, not to anyone's surprise. I'm working on catching up with the wires now, so I'll hopefully be able to post some more detailed analysis shortly.

UPDATE 28-AUG-2006 07:20 EST: Another shot was posted to the wire this morning, a different angle of our green-shirted Screamer. Notice the prominent cell phone earpiece in this shot, and ask yourself if you think it's appropriate in this kind of scenario. It strikes me as being a bit odd.

UPDATE 10:49 EST: Reader Will informs us, via e-mail, that my theory of the truck being hit by an RPG is unlikely. To quote Will,

Simulated RPG damage.
A suggestion that it was an RPG (fired by the Palestinians) that hit the Reuters van isn't likely, (though it is remotely possible).

A shaped charge (which is used in the PG-7s typically carried) usually leaves a melted spot on armored vehicles (they function by forming a jet of plasma that then penetrates the armored vehicles) If the vehicle is unarmored (which the roof doesn't appear too well armored in these photos) the penetration would have been much better...


Will sent the attached photo, which is a standard 55-gallon drum (ok, the link is an inside joke) that was taken out by an M42 shaped charge, and it definitely looks nothing like our truck's damage. Ah well, so much for that little theory. Will does go on to say,

In an armored vehicle, the roof wouldn't likely be dented, and the melt pattern would be much more apparent on the entry. The Reuters vehicle has none of this.

This certainly isn't from any sort of direct hit, so if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they may have caught some stray frag from being too close to an actual target of attack.

Added to the photos of the "injuries" - which are most definitely staged, I would say that this is certainly a fake, with the mechanism of damage being kinetic energy (such as something really large being dropped on it or a stray piece of fragmentation) rather than any sort of munitions "hit".


Thanks for the input, Will! It's letters like this that keep me honest. Many thanks to all of my military readers, who continue to make up for my distinct lack of knowledge on weapons systems!

UPDATE 15:37 EST: Reader Pablo at The Jawa Report informs us that Getty has a photograph of the interior of the vehicle up and available. Needless to say, if this were really a missile, there'd be considerably more damage than this. This story is 1000% bogus!

UPDATE 29-AUG-2006 11:14 EST: Allah Pundit has discovered some very interesting information about the types of weaponry which might have caused this damage. Nothing definite yet, but it's certainly something to think about.

UPDATE 15:37 EST: Ace and Allah Pundit are calling for restraint on this story. Yes, the IDF has admitted that it targeted a vehicle (curiously enough, this admission is not listed on their website at present), and yes, Allah Pundit's previous article regarding possible explanations for the damage are fairly convincing. I'm leaving the story and photos out there, for the record, as I am still confident that the reaction provided in the photographic record is definitely another Pallywood acting production.

Thank you for the words of restraint, Ace. That's the wonderful thing about the blogosphere:—unlike the traditional press, we editorialize in the open. Our readers see what we're thinking, they see our decision-making process, and they see how a story develops out in the open. As a result, they're getting far more information than they'd ever get from a more traditional source.

(As a late addition to the above thought, this just occurred to me:—Our corrections during the development of a story are also public record, front and center. On a story earlier today, Allah Pundit himself pointed out something that I had missed, and I incorporated the correction into the main story itself. In the press, when a mistake is made and admitted publically (a rare event), it's placed in a corrections column, buried far away from the actual story itself. Newspapers put them deep in their print editions, television news stories may spend 30 seconds discussing mistakes at the end of a program. Chalk this up as another reason why the "new" media is more open and honest than more "traditional" sources.)

UPDATE 19:16 EST: It seems that Allah Pundit is signing off from this controversy. I can certainly understand his point of view, but I think there're too many unknowns about this whole situation to give in so easily. While it's entirely possible that the SUV was hit (directly or not), the reaction of the people surrounding it is suspicious at best. If you look closely at the photograph of the dashboard, there is clearly a portion of the vinyl that appears to be melted. So perhaps, there was some breech of the armor, but does that explain the reactions we see around the hospital? I mean, do normal men conveniently scream in agony, when cameras are present? Especially if there's no known relationship between them and someone who's injured? I'd tend to suggest that they do not. Something still smells fishy about the story, and we still do not have official, public word from named officials at the IDF accepting blame for hitting this truck.

Was the truck carrying terrorists, in violation of the neutrality of the press? It's not like the Palestinians have never done something like that before!

Allah Pundit, don't write this controversy off so quickly. I'm not advocating that we jump after controversies that aren't, and I'm not suggesting that—given the full facts and information—we continue to blog over something that's disproven. But I do think it's too early for the jury to be out on this one.

UPDATE 30-AUG-2006 09:59 EST: A number of readers have commented that the IDF has admitted to targeting this press vehicle. If you read every article written about the event, though, you'll quickly discover that we're getting unconfirmed anonymous reports from the IDF, and not any form of official statement!

AP (via Miami Herald): "The Israeli army said it was checking the report."

AP (via Cleveland Plain Dealer): "The Israeli army said no press markings were visible..."

UPI: "An Israeli army spokeswoman said the vehicle was driving suspiciously and came near Israeli forces during a predawn raid that killed two Hamas militants. The Israeli military was investigating how the troops failed to recognize the vehicle as being used by the news media."

Are anonymous sources always accurate? If the information is as definite as some of you would have us believe, wouldn't you expect that there would be named sources making the statements? Wouldn't you expect there to be at least one press conference?

In fact, the only named source providing information I could find was this:

"During the operation, there was an aerial attack on a suspicious vehicle that drove in a suspicious manner right by the forces and in between the Palestinian militant posts," Israeli army spokeswoman Capt Noa Meir said.

"This car was not identified by the army as a press vehicle. If journalists were hurt, we regret it." [all emphasis mine]


Of course, notice the big if in this apology. The IDF is not convinced that it struck a Press vehicle, the facts are not fully in at this point. So why are we rushing to condemn the IDF for something that we're, once again, not sure they did?

So let's stop the "IDF has already apologized" lie. They haven't.

I don't mean to be blogging a dead horse here, but I still don't think we're getting the full story. I've approached this story as cautiously as possible from the very beginning. I'm not out to create controversy out of thin air, and there's no doubting that some of these men suffered very real injuries (that leg injury is too genuine to fake, as is the look of shock on the injured man's face). The question is not "if" there were journalists injured. The question is, and remains, What are the circumstances surrounding their injury?

When the case is definitely proven against the IDF, I'll consider this story closed, and will publically state right here that I held out in error. If the facts point to the IDF being responsible for injuring journalists, then let the condemnation come out then, NOT now.

UPDATE 11:09 EST: Alright, I get it. Rather than being reduced to parody, I'll throw in the towel on this story. There is enough evidence that the vehicle was hit by something. There is enough evidence of actual injury. The actors in this play are unsavory, yes, but that's not reason enough to doubt what has been reported to have happened.

It was a fun run, but I'm just gonna have to say,

Curses! Foiled again!

UPDATE 12:00 EST: I'd be remiss if I didn't at least keep the list of articles related to this story up to date:

The Jawa Report issues a very strong defence of the position I formerly held:—namely, that the blogosphere exists to question official reports, to question the "unquestionable," and to investigate things the "regular" generally will refuse to. I commend Rusty for his stance, even if this story is all but done. Confederate Yankee says something to the same effect, I think. His website's down at the moment (so much for the stability of mu.nu, huh?), so I can't tell for certain. SeeDub responds by stating that it absolutely matters whether a missile or shrapnel hit the truck.

Allah Pundit has provided us with more information on why the truck was hit by something real. My hat's off, as usual.

The story may be essentially disproven at this point, but let's not turn that into a victory against the blogosphere. We're here to ask the questions the press is uncomfortable with, after all, and I think we've done that very well in this instance. All too well.

UPDATE 15:46 EST: Confederate Yankee has received information from armoured-car manufacturers indicating that the damage to our vehicle in question is not consistent with any form of traditional weapons systems, and accompanies it with a ringing defence of those who continue to question this story.

Blogroll: Here're the other blogs that are currently talking about this story: Powerline, LGF, Riehl World View, The Jawa Report, Pajamas Media
Residents look at a press armored jeep after it was hit, according to witnesses, by an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)



Sabbah Hmaida, a Palestinian journalist, is carried to hospital after an Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza late August 26, 2006. An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists, doctors and residents said. One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organisation, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)


Notice how we're showcasing the bloody cameras:

A Palestinian carries television cameras after an Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza late August 26, 2006. An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists, doctors and residents said. One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organisation, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)


A wounded Palestinian arrives at a hospital after an Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza late August 26, 2006. An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists, doctors and residents said. One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organisation, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)


Injured Reuters cameraman Fadel Shama'a, 23, is wheeled into the emergency room of the hospital in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)


Here's a second angle of the first picture, with the exact same pose. Both photographers were doing their best to document a very dramatic, yet almost completely fake moment.

A man reacts as Sabah Hamida, 25, a cameraman working for a local television company, is wheeled into the emergency room of the hospital in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)


Sabah Hamida, 25, a cameraman working for a local television company, is wheeled into the emergency room of the hospital in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)


Fadel Shana, a Reuters cameraman, is carried to hospital after an Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza late August 26, 2006. An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists, doctors and residents said. One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)


A Palestinian journalist inspects a Reuters armoured car after it was hit by an Israeli air strike in Gaza August 27, 2006. (Suhaib Salem/Reuters)


Palestinian journalists inspect a Reuters armoured car after it was hit by an Israeli air strike in Gaza August 27, 2006. (Suhaib Salem/Reuters)


Palestinian journalists inspect a Reuters armoured car after it was hit by an Israeli air strike in Gaza August 27, 2006. (Suhaib Salem/Reuters)


A Palestinian looks at Reuters' armoured car after it was hit by an Israeli air strike in Gaza August 27, 2006. REUTERS/Suhaib Salem


UPDATE 28-AUG-2006 07:20 EST: Here is the latest photo to cross the wires. Notice the guy with the earpiece which is most likely going to his cell phone? It's an odd time to need one of those, but it really stands out in this particular shot.

Fadel Shana, a Reuters cameraman, is carried to hospital after an Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza late August 26, 2006. An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists, doctors and residents said. One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)


Pablo, next time why not try posting a comment here at Snapped Shot? We don't bite!

Usually.

;)

Here's the interior of our "missiled" SUV. I've seen more damage from a cigarette burn, frankly. This story is 1000% bogus, and REUTERS, again, is left with more questions to NOT answer.

GAZA CITY, GAZA STRIP - AUGUST 26: People look in a Reuters vehicle after it was hit, according to reports, in an Israeli air strike August 27, 2006 in Gaza City, the Gaza Strip. According to reports, two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle belonging to Reuters news agency, injuring two journalists inside, including a cameraman employed by Reuters. Three other bystanders with also injured. (Photo by Ahmad Khateib/Getty Images)


UPDATE 31-AUG-2006 07:12 EST: I'm turning on moderation for this article. It seems to have shown up in some Spambot's index, unfortunately.

 Tags: ahmad khateib hatem moussa mohammed salem GETTY AP REUTERS Intifada


Comments:

#1 captainfish 27-Aug-2006
The "SUV" looks like it was rolled and landed on a big rock. What, was that missle full of mud or something? How does a missle strike cause mud to be thrown onto the top of the roof?

Was this a square missle? Wouldn't the hole of a normal missle be ROUND? And again, the stories of fire and big explosion, but yet no signs whatsoever of either.

And, you know, if this occurred at night by an aircraft, how would IAF be able to tell it was a "press" vehicle? Does a press vehicle have a different heat signature than a terrorist's vehicle?

Hmmmmm,,, this must have been a regular bomb to have such a direct impact. Don't missles come at the target from a lower angle of attack?

You know, I am starting to get really concerned with the effectiveness of the IAF's arsenal. If their armorments are not even capable of destroying press or ambulance-type vehicles, then they seriously, really need to take a look at whether their ballistics have expired. Maybe they are firing duds?!?!

How good would that be should a serious war with Syria or Iran occur and the IAF can't even destroy a jeep, let alone a tank.
#2 Brian the sailor 27-Aug-2006
Good call captainfish. I thought I was observant when I noticed that whenever I bleed on my clothing, blood tends to leach into the material and not stay in bright red Hollywood style blotches.

I'm an idiot. I didn't even register the mud on the roof!

Cheers.
Brian
#3 Sticky+Notes 27-Aug-2006
I thought the hole looked old. A tear, not new ripping of a painted surface.
#4 captainfish 28-Aug-2006
I must say now, with your new overhead shots of the stage vehicle... that the tear is triangular. It is not square or circular like that of a missle or even a mortar.

Besides, don't mortars and missles explode upon impact. They are not designed to break through and then explode like anti-take weaponry are. Am I correct?

This looks more and more like a huge fake. They could have at least made the hole look circular!!!

Hey, is that a crack all along the front line of the roof where it meets the front piece?? There is a definite crack between the "P" and the "R" of the word PRESS that is written above the windshield. It is very prevalent on your very first photo of the ambulance (*xem104.jpg).

This definitely looks like an attempt to repair a hatchet job. Maybe a piece of wood from a nearby building that was under attack came flying down, bringing with it concrete debris and dust.
#5 captainfish 28-Aug-2006
Ok, thanks for the info. The damage is definitely from falling concrete. If Mr. Whiteshirt was sitting in the passenger seat looking up through the windshield, his head could have been hit by a piece of the concrete making it through the "armor".

Do we now have a Mr. Green Shirt?? Strange how he is WAILING over two "victims". Even stranger is how the "victims" are not wailing. Hey, are those dirty hands (concrete dirt) on the victim in the black shirt?

(sorry for the multiple posts)
#6 Jon 28-Aug-2006
The van looks more like something square (concrete block perhaps) fell on it.
#7 The Jawa Report 28-Aug-2006
As we reported on Saturday, Palestinian "witnesses" claim that an Israeli missile hit this Reuters truck. Does this look like a truck that was hit by a "missile" to you? Is that rust on the roof? The damage seems much...
#8 Israeli Abroad 28-Aug-2006
Why is the guy in the stretcher, the one with the "bloody" vest and the spotless white undershirt, wearing cammo patterned pants? Isn't he supposed to be a journalist?
#9 Pajamas Media 28-Aug-2006
Once you lost it, you lost it forever: Jawa Report, Powerline, and Snapped Shot are suspicious over the pictures of the Reuters vehicle allegedly attacked by Israel. Blind, deaf and dumb? The Israeli army has destroyed a Hezbollah bunker...
#10 Brian 28-Aug-2006
Good point! I was going to comment on his clean laundry, but never got around to it. As far as I know, he's the Reuters reporter who was "knocked unconscious," so I can only imagine that this is someone else's blood splattered on his shirt.

What's really curious is the guy who's walking into the hospital, covered in blood. I'm not sure how anyone with that much /of his own blood/ on him could be walking on his own, so once again, I'd have to wonder whose blood it is.

There's definitely something fishy about this whole story. I'm not buying it *at all*, Al-Reuters!
#11 Ex-Donkey Blog 28-Aug-2006
GAZA (Reuters) - The missile struck the "P" of the bright red "PRESS" sign on the roof of the armor-plated Reuters car as Gaza cameraman Fadel Shana hurried to film an Israeli raid. Shana saw only a sheet of flame and the doors of the vehicle fly open. He regained...
#12 Michelle Malkin 28-Aug-2006
Bloggers take a closer look at the alleged Israeli strike on a Reuters news van from last week: See Power Line, Snapped Shot, and Hot Air. *** Related: Allah looks closely, very closely, at that NYTimes cheesecake shot. Greg...
#13 captainfish 28-Aug-2006
BWUUHAAAAAA!!!! (related to last pic showing inside of vehicle)
The first vehicle that I bought looked worse than this war-damaged, missle-blasted, war-torn vehicle.......

Hey, I want to know what company they bought their CB/radio from. I mean, it can take 1 or even 2 missle hits at the exact same location and the hand-piece still stays in the same place.

Ok, here's a game. List all things wrong with this picture:
-radio's microphone still hanging on dash
-clear plastic case holding notepad still undamaged by firestorm, and still atttached
-truck was used a chick-mobile. Note abundance of cassette tapes.
-ceiling carpet undamaged except around hole
-still no shots of the ONE window blown out
-no hole in floorboard
-no damage to floorboard
-no damage to center console (cassettes)
-damage done to BENT dashboard from a missle??
-no one has yet to loot the jewelry in the passenger seat
-absolutey, positively no shrapnel damage on the inside. seat can use a handi-wipe and be ready to go.
#14 Jacquee 28-Aug-2006
I would like to have someone comment on the other photos.

In looking at the picturess it looks like we have a now have the "green shirt guy". The "the green shirt guy" is there with his anguishted expressions photographed with both Sabbah Hmaida and Fadel Shana.

Also in one photo of Fadel Shana it looks like he is wearing a tan shirt and white teeshirt; yet in the other photos his shirt is clearly white. Was this just a quirk with the lighting or did he change shirts?
#15 dna 28-Aug-2006
I think we can rule out missiles or rockets striking the vehicle.

Perhaps, since they were entering a zone with active hostilities, they were targeted by some Palestinians with an RPG that hit the ground around where they were disembarking, knocking out the guy with the bloodstain on this shirt, while really injuring the other (if that photo of his leg injury is to be believed)?

As for the other bloody guy, well, you get lots of blood gushing when your forehead is grazed -- that's why Samurais had that headband.

Finally, gotta love the way the guy in the green shirt is emoting, although I doubt he'll win an oscar for his performance.
#16 waste 28-Aug-2006
This is not damage from any explosive ordinance. At best its from debris from a nearby explosion such as a piece of concrete as others have mentioned. The 'rust' on the roof could be dirt or concrete dust from such a hit.

One of the occupants claimed that there was a wall of flame. However looking at the inside pic there is no evidence of fire damage. Those cassettes are made of plastic but show no signs of melting. Nor do the seat, dash, or upholestry.

Most likely they got hit by debris causing them to crash and hence the injures. At which point they 'exaggerated' the incident. That's a best case scenario. At worst it was totally staged.

Anyone who has seen the car swarms knows what a vehicle that has taken a missle hit looks like. Let alone two. Those missles are designed to penetrate tank armor, even an armored land rover would be a burnt husk from a single missle hit.
#17 Pablo 28-Aug-2006
Hola, Brian! Great work, my friend.

Every little bit helps, I guess. There are just too many eyeballs watching for this stuff to keep getting snuck past us. The jig is up!

Have you seen this interesting piece of information at LGF?

"Today, Caroline Glick reveals in her column that this “local journalist” actually worked for ... wait for it ... the Iranian World TV network..."

(I see my hyperlink isn't going to render, but it's currently the second post down)
#18 a golden BB 28-Aug-2006
Had that armored vehicle been penetrated by an explosive device the "victims" would've been hairless. Being in such a confined space the burning gasses (1500deg F?) from the device would've definately singed the hair off of them. Most everything flammable inside the vehicle would've burst into flames.

Aside from the tear in the headliner there is no damage from these gasses. There doesn't seem to be any paint blistering from this extreme heat either.

No, had it been a missle attack, being *Armour *Piercing or *High *Explosive, there wouldn't be much left.

AP would've tourched the vehicle, and everything inside, while HE would've shredded it.
#19 Costa Rica Larry 28-Aug-2006
Everyone is forgetting one little bit of critical information here. Israel has actually said that they targeted the vehicle. Actually, they are saying that they targeted "A" vehicle, not seeing the Press identification which is understandable if it was at night. I think that if they did this sure can't be the one they targeted!

I tend to agree with most of the posts here but would like to make a few other observations. If the vehicle were hit from above, wouldn't you expect to see mostly head injuries? It appears that everyone was injured in the front, and as two of the supposed victims were getting OUT of the vehicle, wouldn't you expect the injuries to be in their backs?

I might have missed something as I didn't see all of the photos (I was lucky to get a 20k connection here in the jungle) but are there any actual WOUNDS visible in any of the pics?

The original photo that was available yesterday looked like it had been splashed with gray paint. From another view it looks like mud. Whatever, great job of covering up the rust!

Just a few thoughts!
#20 Michelle Malkin 28-Aug-2006
Bloggers take a closer look at the alleged Israeli strike on a Reuters news van from last week: See Power Line, Snapped Shot, and Hot Air. Update: Hot Air affiliate David Lunde applies some Adnan Hajjian Photoshop work to...
#21 captainfish 28-Aug-2006
Hi Costa Rica,
Well, Isreal has a bad low-self-esteem habit of admitting guilt and apologizing for deaths or incidents that upon further investigation turn out that they were not to blame. Apologize first, then investigate.

They may have targeted the vehicle. But they could have missed too and struck a building next to them, dislodging a chunk of concrete causing it to fall onto the vehicle, causing the vehicle to be driven erratically and ultimately striking something to flatten the tire.

There is no other explanation for why the tire is flat. Some have suggested that it must have been some missle-like strke to also flatten the tire. Heck, if you are struck by a heavy object in a free-fire zone, and some of your mates turn up bloody, you are going to put the lead onto the accellerator.

Yeah, if there was a fireball, they would have been singed getting out of the vehicle...... but there is absolutely no heat damage inside the vehicle.

I think only one guy got injured. The man in the white shirt. He then bled onto the other guys who fained injury for the cameras.
#22 sonic 29-Aug-2006
Sorry to burst your bubble, IDF has admitted it did it.

"An Israel Defense Force (IDF) spokesperson said the car had aroused suspicion because it was near soldiers in a combat area at night, Reuters reported."

OMG that means that the Israeli govt is also part of the vast left-wing conspiracy!!!
#23 Fellow Peacekeeper 29-Aug-2006
1. The roof of the vehicle is not significantly armoured - very thin, compare with the applique panels around the windshield and doors. I concur that the roof is debris damage, and certainly neither HE nor shrapnel (let alone a direct hit).
2. The circular starring of the windshield (more prominent in the photos from inside), the head injuries and blood splatters leads to a hypothesis like the guys sustained their injuries head-butting the windshield and dashboard, the leg injuries sustained by maybe traumatic penetration with cine camera etc.

Hypothesis : perhaps the vehicle really was close enough to airstrike to see flames and be struck by debris. "Journalists" panic and crash vehicle into obstruction, sustain said injuries. Incident is sexed up by hezbis, and accepted by the useful idiots at reuters.
#24 captainfish 29-Aug-2006
I have read Ace's view on this matter. I thank him and respect him for it.

But, as has been pointed out and is widely known, Isreal admits to doing things before it knows what it is admitting to. Recall that it apologized for bombing a beach where a family of palestinian sunbathers were having a picnic despite ample warning from the palestinians and signs in the area. A later investigation of the shrapnel removed from the bodies showed that it did not come from any Isreali ordinance.

What did Isreal say? They saw a vehicle and shot at it. What vehicle? In this particular battle? Did they hit the vehicle? With what were they firing at it? Pistols, mortars, A-bombs? Did they destory the vehicle or miss it? Did the vehicle drive away after being shot at or was it obliterated?

Yes, we can speculate and we can reserve judgement on this story. But I think the facts speak for themselves. Either this press vehicle was not hit by isreali weaponry or it was hit with a very light and non-explosive ordinance. The "missle" obviously disentigrated upon impact without a fireball. If there were pieces of it left, I will bet you 10 million donuts that the locals would have been parading it around as evidence of Isreal's inhumanity.

And, if this is Reuter's press vehicle? Then why so few pictures of it? Why no pictures from ALL sides? Were those the only two Reuter's cameramen in the entire area?? No one is left to take more pictures??
#25 nancibelle 29-Aug-2006
Did you notice "green helmut guy" in two of the pictures (#8 and #13). He looks like he shaved so he doesn't look so scruffy, but I believe that is him.
#26 Brian 29-Aug-2006
Nancibelle,

I'm not sure if GHG would be in these pictures—as far as I've been able to determine, he's based out of Lebanon, whereas this is somewhere on the Gaza Strip.

Hope that helps—thanks for the tip!

Regards,
Brian
#27 Gordon Reed 29-Aug-2006
Before yopu get too carried away with your conspiracy theories, you might want to take note of the fact that the IDF admitted striking the Reuters vehicle. It is not disputed.
#28 Pablo 29-Aug-2006
Israel has also admitted to shooting Mohammed al-Dura, rocketing picknickers on the Beach in Gaza and blasting the ambulance in Qana.

As it turns out, they didn't do any of these things. It seems they've got this horrible policy of apologizing first and investigating later.

I believe they fired on something in the area, but I'm not so sure it was that truck. I am sure that I've seen numerous Pallywood productions, including corpses that fall of stretchers and get back on them, then do it again and walk away in disgust.

It's the Middle East, Gordon. Everything is a conspiracy, depending on who you ask.
#29 captainfish 30-Aug-2006
Brian,
I comend you on standing your ground.
Pablo,
you are correct in that Pallywood were the originators of fauxtography. They taught the actors of Hezbollywood.

No, we are not jumping out of control on issues like this. For me, if I can get something straight in my mind as to what it "is", then I can more easily spot simularities in future issues.

Think if this as building a training video. We are building the pieces that will comprise a host of knowledge about the Pallywood's capacity to present fake news.

Take for example Eureferendum's compilation on the Qana Incident. That can now be used as means of determining their M.O.

Are we going to go crazy on this and assume everything is suspect. No. Are we going around screaming and hollering for heads to roll? No.

Not yet.


P.S.: I tried the arms waving, loud overt wailing and nashing of teeth the other day at a store when I dropped my fries on the floor. Camera phones were clicking all over. It worked!! I got fresh fries!! jk But makes a point that it gets people's attention.
#30 Brian 30-Aug-2006
For the record, as of right now, there is still no *named* IDF official who has commented on this attack, and there is still no official report on their website.

Can anyone out there in the blogosphere—ANYone—give us the NAME of an IDF spokesman who will confirm this story?

-Brian.
#31 Brian 30-Aug-2006
See 14.1. When (IF!) the IDF releases its report on the matter, I'll consider this story closed. Until then, I think the situation is fair game for discussion and speculation.

-Brian
#32 Confederate Yankee 30-Aug-2006
There has been quite a bit of debate in the blogosphere surrounding this story (note: link has been deactivated) of several days ago: An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists as...
#33 fromouterspace 02-Sep-2006
pictures from this typ of car in gaza
can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/s9blm
http://tinyurl.com/mzcgn
http://tinyurl.com/o3ezx
http://tinyurl.com/r2u8o
http://tinyurl.com/m5k84

(there they still have windscreen wipers and some other parts too)

here is one of the damaged car i havent
seen here
http://tinyurl.com/ovnb2
#34 Watergate 04-Sep-2006
Completely fake. Who filmed the mad dash to the hospital? Did they wait for a camera crew to arrive to take people to the hospital? And, how did all of the press know to be waiting at the right hospital when the allegedly injured parties arrived in the horrible rush? (I agree completely that the damage is more consistent with an attempt to steal the car radio than with any explosive device. Look at, among 100 other things, how pristine the seats are [other than the blood]. Not a scratch. I've caused more damage to my seats loading stuff from Home Depot.)
#35 Photography Blog 28-Feb-2008
Arguement and Analysis of a Rueters Photo
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us