IDF clears troops in propagandist's death.

On April 16, 2008 a Palestinian posing as a journalist (They can call themselves journalists all they want, but in reality they are propagandists!), Fadel Shana'a, was killed by an Israeli tank crew. He had been setting up his tripod getting ready to take film and they fired upon him.

Thousands gathered for the funeral of Fadel Shana, 23, a Reuters cameraman. His body was carried through the streets of Gaza City, draped in a Palestinian flag. His camera and bloodied flak jacket were carried on a second stretcher. Reuters said x-rays showed several inch-long darts, known as flechettes, embedded in Shana's chest and legs as well as his flak jacket. His jacket was marked with a fluorescent "Press" sign and his car, which was not armoured, was marked Press and TV.

Flechettes are small metal darts contained in some tank shells which explode above the ground and can cover a wide area. They have been used in conflicts since the first world war and have been used by the Israeli military in the past. In 2003 the Israeli high court rejected a petition by two human rights groups asking for flechette shells to be banned in Gaza.

Isn't it wonderful that these people give a funeral to cameras and flak jackets. How thoughtful. First reports of this was that an IAF helicopter fired at them, then a tank, then 10 tanks. They never could keep their reports about the incident straight.

But he was in an area where rockets are daily fired from. And setting up equipment in such an area will cause the military to attack on sight.

The army found that troops acted properly when they opened fire on Fadel Shana, suspecting he was a terrorist preparing to fire a missile after he set up a tripod in a Gaza battle zone. Shana was killed instantly by a tank shell that sprays a hail of metal darts at its target. Four bystanders also died in the attack.

"In light of the reasonable conclusion reached by the tank crew and its superiors, that the characters were hostile and were carrying an object most likely to be a weapon, the decision to fire at the targets ... was sound," Brig. Gen. Avihai Mandelblit, the IDF's top prosecutor, said in a letter sent to Reuters. The news agency made the letter public on Wednesday.

In a statement issued at its London headquarters, Reuters said the army probe could effectively give soldiers a "free hand to kill," without being sure of the identity of their targets.

"I'm extremely disappointed that this report condones a disproportionate use of deadly force in a situation the army itself admitted had not been analyzed clearly," said David Schlesinger, Reuters' editor in chief. "They would appear to take the view that any raising of a camera into position could garner a deadly response."

Shana, 24, was killed on April 16 while covering clashes between Gaza terrorists and IDF troops. Just before his death, Shana was filming an Israeli tank about one mile away, and his final video showed it firing a shell in his direction. The video cut off just as the shell burst in front of him.

The shooting occurred on a day of clashes in which three IDF soldiers and 20 Palestinians were killed.

I'm not surprised that Reuters' would issue such a statement. It is blatantly anti-Semitic and biased against any of the values the Free World (civilized nations) hold dear.

"The tank crew was unable to determine the nature of the object mounted on the tripod and positively identify it as an anti-tank missile, a mortar or a television camera," Mandelblit wrote.

He noted that earlier in the day, IDF troops had also come under fire from mortar shells, and a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a tank.

"These contributed to a heightened sense of risk, and strengthened the genuine suspicion that the persons identified were in fact a threat to the tank and its crew," Mandelblit wrote.

He also said Shana and Wafa Mizyed, a Reuters colleague wounded in the attack, were wearing body armor commonly used by Palestinian militants.

"The tank crew's superiors, asked to authorize firing by the tank, reasonably concluded ... that the characters identified by the tank were hostile, and posed a threat to the tank and its crew," he wrote.

Let us see, setting up equipment in a war zone, wearing flak jackets similar to those worn by the enemy, and not identifying themselves as press, even though Reuters now claims that their flak jackets were blue not camouflage as earlier reports and film show them wearing.

In other words, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, the chances are that you have a Quacker there.