Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Reuters cameraman films his own death

2008-04-17

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.
Why don't you come over Mr Schlesinger, and stand right in front of me? Yours cordially, the Tank.

Paleos occasionally use cameramen as spotters. Mayhaps Fadel was just a cameraman in the wrong place. Mayhaps not.

Posted by:g(r)omgoru

#28 LR - good analysis - I concur. Pallywood's lost their credibility for most objective observers, and I'm becoming less and less objective with each fraud "atrocity", f*ck em and their enabling "media"

Posted by: Frank G 2008-04-17 22:14

#27 These rounds are common - just about every US tank every tank carries them, among the munitions mix. US troops call them "beehive" rounds - 'lots of small stings. The photo of the dart (flechette) is exactly right.

It will all boil down to what the ROE were for the tank crew at the time.

The vehicle was obscured by the roadway berm - so if the "victims" were in the roadway, at positions shown, they would have been in defilade, and the cameraman unable to film. At minimum, the "victims" were ,moved from the berms slope to the roadway.

Cheap paleowood fakery of the situation. I would not be the least surprised if the bodies (or at lost the weapons) of several shooters were "sanitized" away from the scene.

This looks like a pretty happy kill to me.

Clue for cameramen: When you are in a war zone, at the front line of one side of the "discussion," then when a tank gun or artillery tube on the other side is pointed directly at you, you are advised to take cover or un-ass the area.

If you stay, you play - and maybe you pay.

Posted by: Lone Ranger 2008-04-17 21:24

#26 You are all forgetting..
Forgetting the latest anti-sniper equipment.
It looks for lenses by scanning a scene with a laser, picking up the reflection and then matching it to known sniper-scopes and targeting lenses.

10-1 the camera lens or one near it matches on on some weapon.

Posted by: 3dc 2008-04-17 21:20

#25 At certain angles a man with a professional TV camera looks just like a man with an AT missile launcher.

During my years with AFRTS, our cameramen were taught the same thing. I recall a poster showing a frontal view of a cameraman and a guy pointing a RPG side by side. Hard to tell the difference from a distance, especially under combat conditions.

Posted by: Steve 2008-04-17 20:37

#24 I guess the question to ask is does the US ROE allow for the flechette in urban combat where civilians are in the locality.

Posted by: Penguin 2008-04-17 20:04

#23

Israel Military Industries has developed a 120mm APERS round and the more advanced 105mm and 120mm Anti-Personnel, Anti-Materiel (APAM) round, which is intended to defeat targets such as anti-tank teams.

The IDF is using a modified version of the M494 105mm APERS-T round provided by the USA in the 1970s. According to a US Army manual, the round is "designed for close-in assault against massed infantry assaults and for offensive fire against exposed enemy personnel".

In IDF service the M494 is fitted with the Reshef Technologies OMEGA M127 electronic fuze which is set before the round is fired. At the set range the forward section of the M494 round ruptures releasing approximately 5,000 small flechette darts and a dye marker. The flechettes are dispersed in a cone-shaped pattern which is 300m long and about 94m wide.

Posted by: john frum 2008-04-17 19:41

#22 Just saw a news report where a flechette was seen on the xray of one of the injured. Looks like an air-burst AP round.

Posted by: john frum 2008-04-17 19:34

#21 Note that the car is on a road with berms on both side that are above the height of the car. Unless the tank was either directly in front of or behind the car the tank should not have even been able to to see the car. And if the tank was in front it probably could not see the sign let alone read it. They were probably shooting at that "3 man AT crew" discussed before by g(r)omgoru

Fox just showed a slow-mo of the clip that shows a flechette anti-personnel round gong off. Nasty, effective. Destroyed the camera, they must have been able to save the memory.

Posted by: tipover 2008-04-17 18:39

#20 shows the final moments of agency cameraman Fadel Shana as he films an IDF tank firing, moments before apparently being hit by the shell

Edgy and ironic - it's what indy film making is all about.

Posted by: SteveS 2008-04-17 17:18

#19 Note the video camera toward the end of the vid. It looks like a round or shrapnel has gone through the lens, but the camera itself appears undamaged.

Not conclusive, but suggestive that some (or all) of the incident was staged.

Posted by: phil_b 2008-04-17 17:05

#18 My question is, the video has a nice, clear shot of the tank and incoming round. The destroyed car is in a road in a gully. So... how did the round strike it? The tank shell stop in mid-air and drop straight to the ground?
Also, the other bodies on the ground look a little too intact for being right next the HP round impact site.

Posted by: DarthVader 2008-04-17 16:40

#17 Note to Rooters "stringers": pointing lenses at a tank in battle can be hazardous to your continued existence.

Posted by: mojo 2008-04-17 16:13

#16 (a) At certain angles a man with a professional TV camera looks just like a man with an AT missile launcher.
(b) Press markings on the jeep---these are Paleos.
(c) They shot him with co-ax.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-04-17 16:00

#15 The vid seems OK to my untrained eye.

I don't see any evidence of terrorists around. Why would the tank be firing at a bunch of guys standing around? Perhaps the tank crew thought the white vehicle was a technical or something, the cameraman was a guy with an RPG, and the rest were a bunch of his buddies who wanted to witness the event.

I don't like it, but I understand it. Unless evidence to the contrary comes out.

I notice that while Paleos celebrate whenever a bus bus bombing goes off as planned and kills civilians at random, they cry their uvulas out whenever a situation which is tragic but understandable like this happens.

Move along. Nothing here to see until the bad guys put on uniforms and stop hiding amongst the civilians.

Posted by: gorb 2008-04-17 15:15

#14 First thought - besides the whole drive up to the wounded being staged (little kid on the bike with what looks like a hollywood wound, motionless yet no real gore and nobody there to help but a dude taking pictures, bike looked fine, sandles looked awkwardly placed for such an event). Plus the intermingling of other shots from different instances.

I don't think having a little white square on the hood, offcenter, with 'TV' counts as clearly marked. The vehicle was not a bright color (dirty white), and had an off-roading outfit. Second, this vehicle pulls up and stops partially obscured by tree foliage and the road embankment, 3 dudes (I didn't see anyone in a flak jacket or anything which would tell tale mark them as press) get out 1 pulls a piece of equipment out and points it at the tank? I know what I would think if I were in the tank...3 man mobile anti-tank squad - and yeah you could rig up a cord and transmit back a screen shot however far. Lots of people there for just a quick jaunt out to the farm for some pics.

Ima call BS - something else was going on.

Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-04-17 15:01

#13 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cbc_1208413755

Look at the very beginning of the event, and review it a few times. Assume the shot is coming right at the cameraman. Does this look right?

Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-04-17 14:24

#12 if the press continues to allow itself to be used as a weapon of war, rather than an observer, then it should not be surprised when it is treated as such.

Posted by: Woodrow Slusorong7967 2008-04-17 14:08

#11 Ok, I've seen the vid, seems authentic; 2-3 random thoughts.

- The current arab-israeli war is a low intensity one; soldiers don't ask permission to fire their individual weapon, but firing a tank cannon probably is not something done on a whim and follow a chain of command. Therefore, the tank most likely didn't fire at those vehicles with an area weapon out of sheer jooooooooo-ish bloodlust, but because there was a reason for that (fire coming from there, a group of gunmen spotted in that spot,...?). Anyway, tank shells are expensive, especially specialized ones like that.

- The lawfare is already on, with calls to ban antipersonal tank shells, right on cue. Remember, warfare laws are only to be used by the tranzis and the commies/third-worldists to bind western powers. Freedom Fighters and non-western countries can do as they please, there never will be calls to ban suicide bombers going off in kiddies pizzeria.

- From that distance, the "press" markings were basically useless (and were they only visible from that angle?); besides, this has been demonstrated over and over, but local stringers in the middle east are NOT objective reporters (I won't dwell on the fact international reporters are not objective neither), but they are integral part of the local propaganda machinery, from the hizbollah, the plo, etc, etc... So, this paleostinian rooters cameran was not an independent observer, but a fighter, with his own kind of weapons. He's not an innocent journalo killed, but a palo fighter put to sleep.

Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-17 14:04

#10 it's already on liveleak

Posted by: sinse 2008-04-17 14:03

#9 Call me cynical, but I'm not convinced. Not only do Paleos occasionally use cameraman as spotters but their media manipulation skills have been well documented in the past.

You'll notice that when the footage first cuts to bodies of young men lying in blood on the street, it all looks a bit staged and fake to me. I wouldn't put it past them to have manufactured the entire incident out of thin air.

Then again, mistakes do happen in the field of battle. If you are concerned about being on the wrong end of a mistake, best you stay away.

Posted by: eltoroverde 2008-04-17 13:41

#8 Well, it could have been.

Posted by: steven 2008-04-17 13:30

#7 It could have been a very, very small tank round.

Posted by: Gloluck Sinatra8522 2008-04-17 13:28

#6 A tank shell would not let anything of the jeep and much less the camera.

Posted by: Dino Spavick1095 2008-04-17 13:19

#5 I think you all miss the point : when will the vid be leaked on youtube or liveleak?!

Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-17 13:12

#4 moments before apparently being hit by the shell

What happens to Reuter's accusation if the autopsy shows Mr. Shana was actually killed by a Palestinian bullet?

Posted by: trailing wife 2008-04-17 12:56

#3 Sadly, you hang out with cockroaches and Rachel Corey and sometimes you get the roach motel.

Posted by: anymouse 2008-04-17 12:53

#2 Maybe the shot was intentional. After all, the press has done as much or more damage to Israel's security than any other group.

Posted by: DarthVader 2008-04-17 12:35

#1 To rooters, any terrorist with a videocam is an "agency cameraman".

Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-04-17 12:34

00:00