The worst thing about this is that it's even plausible. Accidents will happens. If you double the number of man-hours snipers spend with their fingers on the trigger, the number of people accidentally shot may be expected to double, too. And journalists will tend to be around the same places where the snipers snipe, right?
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Also: Live by the sword, kill innocents accidentally by the sword.
> The worst thing about this is that it's even plausible. Accidents will happens
Of course it's plausible. She jumped in the line of fire with a big "PRESS" inscription on her chest. That's why they shot her in the head, by accident.
Snipers use single shots, not machine guns, so there was no way for her to jump into any line of fire. You're bending the truth, which tends to suggest that your arguments need a bit of bent truth to sound persuasive.
The Israeli army says the goal was to shoot someone else. IMO shooting the wrong person doesn't make it significantly worse, but you may disagree.
You should take a look at the videos.
There was a line of fire. It's clear on the videos. You can see that the snipers didn't "use single shots". Journalists were targeted. All investigations except the israeli ones led to the conclusion that it was an intended shot that killed Shireen.
"Accident". So it's OK to shot other palastinians as log as they aren't important people? How sick of a statement is this. There should have never been a sniper in such a situation in the first place.
9 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 34.0 ms ] threadLive by the sword, die by the sword. Also: Live by the sword, kill innocents accidentally by the sword.
It calls for invective, really.
Of course it's plausible. She jumped in the line of fire with a big "PRESS" inscription on her chest. That's why they shot her in the head, by accident.
The Israeli army says the goal was to shoot someone else. IMO shooting the wrong person doesn't make it significantly worse, but you may disagree.