Here is a summary of what @bellingcat and @CNN got wrong with Shireen Abu Akleh's death:
The only way they have any clue of the distance of the gunshots that killed her came from is the audio study. It is accurate. But they assume that fire can ONLY have come from due south.
The only way they have any clue of the distance of the gunshots that killed her came from is the audio study. It is accurate. But they assume that fire can ONLY have come from due south.
They make the basic error (and I did too!) that since the only videos they had seen showed only the IDF at (roughly) that distance, that the fire MUST have come from the IDF.
And since it appeared that it was directed at the reporters, they assumed it was purposeful.
And since it appeared that it was directed at the reporters, they assumed it was purposeful.
It didn't QUITE add up - the IDF was further away than their estimate (and their estimates were about 20 meters off) but since there was no other possible gunmen in that area south, it MUST have been the IDF. Everyone else made LESS sense. So, assume it is the party whose guilt requires the least amount of twisting facts - even though facts still needed to be twisted.
The fact that the IDF is a professional army, with great disincentive to fire on reporters, did not enter their thinking. This could be because of subconscious bias, or assuming that evidence at hand is all the evidence.
IDF professionalism and the fact that Jenin fighters are trigger-happy amateurs did not enter their parameters. Find the best fit, gloss over the inconsistencies, and voila! We solved it!
So they fit the conclusions with what they knew, not with what was possible. This is a basic error Sherlock Holmes would call out in an instant.
But they didn't know about the group of 15 Jenin gunmen to the southeast.
So they didn't consider that a possibility.
That changes EVERYTHING. Suddenly, when we KNOW there was another group, a whole new range of ideas that were not considered make MUCH more sense than the IDF acting like a spoiled teen or despot who wants to get rid of critics.
What do we know about these gunmen?
1) They WERE walking within the range of the audio estimate of distance to Shireen.
2) They AREN'T professionals. They love to shoot guns. They don't learn military discipline.
3) They can EASILY make mistakes in shooting at people from a distance.
1) They WERE walking within the range of the audio estimate of distance to Shireen.
2) They AREN'T professionals. They love to shoot guns. They don't learn military discipline.
3) They can EASILY make mistakes in shooting at people from a distance.
Also, the firing patterns of the shots that killed Shireen did not sound like the IDF's way of doing things, but they sounded - undisciplined.
Did the militants shoot Shireen?
If I am seeing this video accurately, showing reporters dodging a bullet minutes before Shireen was killed, and then pointing to a building while saying that there were Palestinian militants there, it sure seems possible or likely.
And if they could see a gunman in a building from where they point, that indicates a line of sight from the gunman to Shireen.
This brings up the possibility of gunmen on upper floors in buildings, which definitely solves the line of sight problem. This building would be ideal:
It would have a straight shot west if the IDF convoy went one block north, it is camouflaged with trees, - and it happens to be the exact distance that the bullet traveled to kill Shireen Abu Akleh.
It also fits the bullet patterns of the tree perfectly.
It's just a theory. There might be sections of the wall on the ground that provide line of sight. This is something CNN could have checked and it wasn't interested.
A militant could have hopped on top of a wall, too.
The IDF wasn't in the southeast so any bullet that came from there was from a militant. And we have evidence of at least one that reporters seemed to think did, in fact, come from the southeast.
Does everything add up perfectly yet? No, of course not. But they didn't add up perfectly to indict the IDF, either. We need the bullet. We need Shireen's helmet. We need the bullet that hit the other reporter. But there is enough evidence that there was another group, who were undisciplined, and who were not at all excluded as suspects by the evidence we have.
Perhaps Bellingcat will have the intellectual honesty to look at these other possibilities - they fit in better with the tree bullet holes, they fit better with the reporters in the video, and they fit better with basic logic if you know anything about the IDF beyond BDS lies
And you KNOW CNN will never admit they are wrong unless the evidence becomes overwhelming. They care more about reputation and ratings than the truth.
That's where we are at. There is a compelling alternate theory that was NEVER considered. When you compare the chances of an IDF mistake (or assassination, in the middle of a street battlem turning their backs on the terrorist to their south in order to kill a reporter that would backfire spectacularly) with the chances of a Jenin terrorist making a mistake, there is really no comparison - unless you think the IDF is a bloodthirsty, vindictive army before you start looking at the evidence.
That's where we are at. There is a compelling alternate theory that was NEVER considered. When you compare the chances of an IDF mistake (or assassination, in the middle of a street battlem turning their backs on the terrorist to their south in order to kill a reporter that would backfire spectacularly) with the chances of a Jenin terrorist making a mistake, there is really no comparison - unless you think the IDF is a bloodthirsty, vindictive army before you start looking at the evidence.
Not considering alternate theories, and thinking that the open source media gives a complete picture of the facts, is a recipe for failure.
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
