Experts: Reuters jeep not hit by missile

Representatives of two armored vehicle manufacturers cast doubt on claims by Reuters that its armored vehicle had been struck by an Israeli air strike in Gaza.

Last week, Reuters condemned the IDF and demanded an investigation after it said one of its armored vehicles, containing a Palestinian journalist and a Reuters photographer, had been struck.

But experts from Inkas Armored Vehicle Manufacturing and First Defense International Group, both armored vehicle manufacturers, told the Confederate Yankee blog that photographs of the damaged jeep were not consistent with the Reuters claim.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3298184,00.html

got rear ended.

Cannot imagine what this whole brouhaha is in aid of, except to stir the pot. Both the blog and the news article point out that the IDF acknowledges they fired on a vehicle in the area.

At the time, the IDF said it fired on a suspicious vehicle, but added that it did not identify a press jeep in the area. "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," army spokeswoman Captain Noa Meir said.

I dunno--I'm not going to invest a lot of belief or enthusiasm in the ramblings of "experts" looking at digital photographs on the internet...

at the behest of a conservative blog. :eyes:

IDF said they hit a car. They aren't trying to hide it.

I imagine if there was another car hit, someone might pipe up about it.

One can argue, if one wanted to go far afield over this matter, did IDF see the PRESS and REUTERS lettered on top of the car? What was the angle of the view, could the lettering have not been seen due to light glinting off the paint or the perspective?

I mean, if you are gonna gripe about an issue, that's a better way to approach it than to claim the SODDI (some other dude did it) excuse when the dudes who did it have acknowledged the event.

It just seems like a stupid waste of time and angst to me. I wonder what they are trying to prove. Whatever it is, it just makes them seem less than centered in reality.

who has come forth with many stories that have been most unflattering to the pro-death movement.

It just makes the blog look like a bunch of nitwits.

blithering megaphone idiot can say it has been debunked.

Hey, kudos to Ynet, they're CLEARLY only after using the BEST sources for their stories. Why, only
last week they had an EXCLUSIVE from WorldNetDaily, & if that isn't one of THE BEST sources, then I
don't know what is. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=145401

I did not check out that conf. yankee blog, I assume it's RW just like worldnetdaily. Ynet seems pretty accurate to me, regardless of their sources.