Clashman said:
More on James Miller. It seems as though in fact the video does run significantly longer than what is on the internet and it further confirms that there was no armed activity in the area for an extended period of time prior to the film crew's departure. There is also further evidence that the IDF soldiers in question had fired at unarmed members of the ISM earlier in the night, not for obstructing bulldozers but for trying to help residents of the soon to be demolished house evacuate their belongings.
No, not more. Less. I already took the time to examine the suggested postion during the chain of events.
What is obvious from the video is it is so dark out they couldn't possibly guage their exact placement from the APC. Likewise the picture provides no explanation of topography.
The picture is far to over simplified. It doesn't explain how the bullet was fired such that it would have a downward path that would enter in through his front left lower neck and exit under his right shoulder.
May I see the further evidence the alledged IDF trooper fired at an ISM agent.
18. There were another further 5 shots at approximately 10 second intervals, the film crew believe that all shots came from the same direction. For the duration of the firing both Saira and Abboud continued to shout in the direction of the APCs and throughout this time Saira was also attempting to administer first aid to James.
So they aren't sure?
19. Abboud then ran back to the house for more bandages and to get Dan. They both returned to where James lay. Abboud then ran forward towards where he believed the nearest APC was located and waving the white flag shouted for assistance. One of the APCs (designated in this report as APC 2, (see Annex H)), started its engine and drove forward. Saira, Dan and Abboud then carried James approximately 10 metres to where it had stopped. A second APC (APC 1) arrived and stopped close by.
20. The crew of APC 2 threw down a stretcher, and after considerable difficulty and some limited assistance from the IDF soldiers, managed to get the stretcher onto the deck of the APC. Saira also climbed aboard and accompanied the stretcher back to an IDF base.
Why are their alledged killers helping them? Why wasn't this matter filmed? Why are we refused a chance to see the scene ourself rather than choke on their invectives and obviously emotionally slanted perception? This doesn't make sense. If they wanted to kill these inviduals why not go ahead and then blame it entirely on the palis? It doesn't make sense. Something isn't adding up here.
So there were infact more than one APC? Is it possible the other APC was the one that took fire?
CONDITIONS & FACTORS
21. The following conditions were established and are relevant to any analysis of the incident:
a. Profile. The film crew had been in Rafah for 16 days. On the afternoon of the incident they had been filming IDF activity along the border approximately 400 metres south-west of the house they were to use that evening.
b. Light. The incident occurred at approximately 2300 hrs. There was some ambient light from a quarter moon. The film crew had spent much of the evening on the veranda, which was well lit from within the house.
Yet, we see no muzzle flashes from APC 1 or evidence of tracer rounds.
c. Sound. After the APCs had stopped and turned off their engines there was negligible noise. On a number of occasions in the early evening the IDF soldiers called out to the team in Arabic and Hebrew, and played popular music. The film crew can clearly be heard shouting on the APTN tape that they were British journalists whilst walking out towards the APCs.
Could the soldiers hear from inside the APC? Could they hear from the distance?
Why are these individuals engaging in communication with the film crew if they later blamed to kill them? This just isn't adding up to a random act of violence.
d. Prior Military Activity. There had been sporadic shooting earlier in the evening, which could have been exchanges of fire between the IDF and Palestinian resistance.
Crucial support of my claim
So there
was infact a possible firefight regardless of what the film crew stated. So we now know the reports were completely honest with us. Interesting.
As can best be assessed from the videotape this was several hundred metres away and was not in the immediate vicinity of the incident. As can be seen from the APTN footage the IDF also fired towards members of the ISM earlier in the evening.
Is there an account of this? Were the shots fired blanks, rubber bullets, or other nonlethals? How did this alledged incident unfold?
e. Shots. Seven rounds were fired towards the film crew after they left the house and all members of the film crew believe they came from the same direction.
As was mentioned before the crew "believed" the the shots were fired at them. How could they possibly know unless the bullets hit around them.
With the exception of the one that hit the window frame it was not possible to definitively determine any strike marks from the rounds fired. There are two fresh strike marks on the wall directly behind the film crew which may be from the first, 5th, 6th or 7th shots. The time period between shots can be established from the video footage.
Its possible, but i question their definition of "fresh" bullet marks and when they marks were checked.
I.
First shot: Strike unknown.
II.
Second shot: (13 seconds after the first shot.) Video footage confirms that James was almost certainly hit by the second round. It is possible to see the torch he was holding drop and then him rolling to the right after falling.
III.
Third shot: (12 seconds after 2nd shot.) This can be heard striking a window frame in the house to the sound of breaking glass and passes through to strike the wall of the house.
IV.
Fourth shot: (5 seconds after 3rd shot.) This also seems to land close as there is the sound of debris thrown up by the strike.
V.
Fifth shot: (15 seconds after 4th shot.) Strike unknown.
VI.
Sixth shot: (5 seconds after 5th shot.) Strike unknown.
VII.
Seventh shot: (12 seconds after 6th shot.) Strike unknown
This is an interesting matter. It almosts seems as though if all 7 shots were aimed at the same area the shooter was firing blindly, almost randomly. A good number of the bullets have unkown strike zones.
It would useful at this point to investigate standard firing procedure of a rifle from an APC.
f. Threat. It was reported that at some stage a ?kuwa?, a locally made hand thrown explosive device, was thrown. There were also claims by the IDF that an RPG was fired in the vicinity just before the film crew emerged from the house. Video evidence and witness statements do not support this. Despite the fact that the Frostbite footage is not continuous it is possible to ascertain that there were significant periods when there was no firing of any kind.
Did this "home made" explosive detinate? What about the suggested RPG?
g. APCs. It was not possible to determine exactly where the APCs were located due to the number of tracks in the area. By examination of both the Frostbite and the APTN footage and by questioning witnesses it is probable that the locations marked in the sketch at Annex H are reasonably accurate.
Yet, they claim they were heading directly for it...
ANALYSIS
22. To establish who fired the fatal shot it is necessary to establish the direction the shot was fired. This does of course pre suppose James was facing forward at the time. All evidence, both video and eyewitness accounts support the fact that he was walking towards the suspected APC location and therefore facing to the south- west.
23. There was no shooting at the time the team approached the IDF APC and there had not been shooting for approximately one hour. Although the Frostbite footage is not continuous it can be established from the long periods of inactivity on the tape that there was no shooting for extensive periods prior to the incident. The fact that there was no firing at the time is supported by the APTN video and positively negates any claims that the team were caught in crossfire.
However the trajectory of the first round fired is completely unkown.
24. The APTN video emphatically proves the firing was systematic and deliberate and was not in response to any reasonable threat. It is also difficult to believe the shots were in response to a perceived threat.
Again, assuming all shots were heading the same direction, which of course they crew admits they can not confirm.
Earlier in the evening the ISM also had shots fired in their direction when they attempted to assist some locals recover their furniture from a house that was being destroyed. This is supported by the APTN video footage.
How so? Does it indicate live ammunition was used or the reason why the shots were fired?
The individuals from ISM were not posing any direct threat to the IDF troops. The kuwa that was allegedly thrown may be the small detonation heard on the video footage. None of the crew saw or heard an RPG fired as claimed by the IDF and neither was the distinctive sound nor the visual signature of that weapon system captured on film.
Funny they mention this as their own footage doesn't pick up any muzzle fire or tracer rounds either.
25. The trajectory and direction of the rounds fired are consistent with the rounds being fired from the location of APC 2.
Can we see the evidence please?
This is further supported by the witnesses who unanimously confirm the direction they believed the shots came from. The position of the team on the ground, the window frame and the strike marks on the wall are all in the direct line of fire of the location of APC 2. The precise direction of fire can be further ascertained by analysis of the strike on the window frame and the strike on the wall made as the round continued on its course.
Again, can we see the evidence?
26. The team had been located on the veranda of the house for over 3 hours. An independent assessment was made of the light conditions 5 days later when the investigator confirmed the field of view from the suspected APC locations. The veranda and the route the team took were clearly visible. The lights of the house were on and the team would have been clearly seen from the positions of the APCs. When they left the house they carried a white flag and this was lit by a hand held torch. For the extent of distance they walked until the first shot they were still illuminated by the light from the house.
27. Earlier in the evening the IDF soldiers had been calling towards the house and playing music. It is not reasonable to believe that the IDF soldiers did not hear the film crew calling to them. The APTN tape again substantiates the fact that it was a quiet night there was no background noise that may have drowned out their calls.
What was said? What was the nature of the conversation? Why would the APC crew open fire on them only to precede to aid them by taking them to the IDF base for medical attention?
CONCLUSION
28. The team had been operating openly since before dusk in the area of the veranda which was illuminated by the lights of the house. It has been determined that there was little alternative activity or in fact light in the area and as the APC was only 100 metres away the veranda must have been the focal point of attention. With the exception of a ?kuwa? there was no offensive action by the Palestinian resistance in the immediate area that evening. There had possibly been an exchange of fire further away but there is no reason as to why the immediate area may have been perceived to pose a threat to the IDF soldiers. When the team left the house the area had been quiet for over an hour. They ensured they had had a white flag and illuminated it with a torch. As they walked out they continually called out to ensure the IDF soldiers knew they were there. The first shot was fired after they had clearly identified themselves as British journalists. The tape confirms there is no background noise that could have drowned this out.
29. Taking all these factors into account it is unreasonable to believe IDF soldiers did not know the film team were in the vicinity and that it was this same team that moved out of the house that evening. With the current security status along the border the operational command structure would definitively have been aware of a camera team working in the vicinity. Under the tactical conditions that the unit responsible for this area of operations would have been working under they would have been constantly updated on all unusual activity, especially that of foreign media. Any professional and alert military unit under combat conditions would be aware of each and every location where there was any occupied habitation, human movement or obvious light source.
Yet we have no probable cause for the troopers to open fire. None. The troopers even engaged in coversation with the crew which appears completely innocent. They alledgely fire on the news crew kill james and then precede provide a strecther for james and medical attention at an IDF military base? The whole thing doesn't make sense. It seems to completely and absolutely random.
30. The claim that the team emerged soon after an RPG was fired can be discounted firstly by video evidence and by the fact that they would never have taken such a risk so soon after a military action. No warning was given prior to the IDF soldiers opening fire. The shots fired were systematic and deliberate and obviously not in response to incoming fire. At no time could the team could have posed either a direct or even a perceived threat by their actions. Therefore the action by the soldiers by opening fire was totally unjustified.
Again assumng all the bullets had the same path.
There is just a lot of information that isn't adding up.
i'd certainly like to request APC 1/2's radio communications along with standard firing procedures from an APC.
31. The discipline and professionalism of the IDF soldiers in this instance should be seriously called into question. Their rules of engagement should be ascertained to determine under what conditions they are permitted to open fire. The chain of command of the soldiers involved should be identified to assess whether they reported any suspicious movement or concerns to their superiors before initiating offensive action.
Nonsequitor. These troops may have been in breach of rules of engagement.
32. The conclusion of this report is that the film team were consciously and deliberately targeted by the IDF soldiers. What should to be determined is whether this action is a deliberate policy by the IDF or whether this incident is a result of ill discipline and malicious intent by the junior soldiers.
We can stratch the first notion out. If it were true the IDF wouldn't have stopped to kill them. So lets be serious.
I can't say from the evidence either of the other two were at play. I'd certainly have them psychoanalyzed.
This assertion that Israel only attacks when provoked is pure and utter contrivance,
No, the contrary is contrivance devised from reports formulated in the most assinine of manners to depict the IDF as willing and wanting to engage soft targets to in order to make it seem reasonable to proffer an anti-israel stance. It is absolutely ludicrous to even suggest this is IDF policy.
This matter reminds me much with regards to issue concerning California police. You have a few act out of line and then suddenly all their actions come under suspiscion. Criminals groups, especially those from minorities (such as african americans) often use stereotypes of police officers to project their guilt onto the officer regardless of his skin color.
and there is loads of documentary evidence beyond what is filmed here confirm that.
Now this is definately contrived.
Furthermore, Legion, your continual insistence that Palestinians have no legal claim to their land is both false and disturbing,
It is neither false nor disturbing. It is a simple fact. They rejected the rights to own that land and support Jordan's invasion of Israel and control over the west bank. Jordan Illegaly acquired that land without even the slightest sigh from the UN.
as it smacks of ethnic cleansing through it's justification of Israeli settlements and violence which has claimed far more innocent Palestinians than Israelis.
It doesn't smack of ethnic cleansing at all.
What does is palistinian support of Jordan's war effort to destroy Israel.
I never stated muslims do not have version religious claims to those lands nor have i suggested they should be drive off it. What i have stated is Jordan took the West Bank illegaly in an illegal war with the premise of genocide.
Israel, took the lands from Jordan in a defensive war against them.
Israeli settlements have routinely been established by theft of property, intimidation, and outright murder of Palestinian civilians.
Have we forgotten Muslims acquired these lands in the first place by massacring pagans, christians and jews alike?
That matter aside my article already addressed these suppose allegations of land stealing by murder:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_settlements.php
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/settlements.html
http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/features/campaigns/israeli_settlements.shtml
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en...e^l2673&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&
People such as yourself, who continually attempt to justify Israeli violence through contrivance and bigotry do as great a disservice to peace as any suicide bomber. It is impossible to carry on a civil discussion with the likes of you, and so I shall end mine here.
And what of people like yourself who justify your contived views of israeli violence inspite of the fact there are Arab citizens in Israeli, inspite of the fact they live peacefully, inspite of the fact even to this date many arab nations do not allow for jewish citizen ship or land holding, inspite of the fact palestinians teach their children to murder, etc, etc who's sole justification for their beliefs is bigotry and emotional manipulation by biased media?
The facts remain as evident as they have always been. Numerous accords have been reach and agreed apon by both jewish and arab groups within Israel. A number of them have had to do with providing great amounts of land back to the palestinians who refused legal right to it in return for peace. The Palistinians, time and time again have refused to abide by these meassures.
I am not at all moved by your emotional vitriol and substanceless accussations of bigotry. You haven't formulated even the slightest rational claim to your argument instead you have chosen to hurl meaningless invectives at me while generalizing my opinion as being in line with some infamous group of "people like yourself". You argument does bear quite a bit of context wrt to bigotry. Who should i conclude are people like myself Clash? Heebs and kikes?
Here is are perfect examples of press bias:
http://honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Shocking_Omission_by_AP.asp
http://honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/The_Fatah-Al_Aqsa_Brigade.asp
http://honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Bias_for_Kids.asp
http://honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Not_an_-Apartheid_Wall-.asp
