Ynet covers the great Reuters airstrike controversy (Update: As does Arutz Sheva)

posted at 11:42 am on August 31, 2006 by Allahpundit

The good news: Reporter Yaakov Lappin gives Bob Owens some well deserved recognition for his work on this.

The bad news: His article couldn’t be more one-sided than if Olbermann himself had written it. Bob linked my post in the post that Lappin cites, too, so presumably Lappin was aware that experts were making counterarguments. The link was in an update, though, so maybe he just missed it.

Ah well. Noted for the record. At least they’re covering this.

Update: Heh. The Ynet article has since been updated to say:

Other blogs have discussed other possibilites, with the Hot Air site writing:”The leading alternate theory is that it was shrapnel. And yes, that’s an important distinction, although not as important as some might think. If a rocket hit the van, it proves that the IAF was aiming at it. If it was shrapnel, it suggests that they were aiming at something else, which would put the kibosh on hysterical claims that Israel is targeting the media.”

Allah’s whining gets results, baby. Thanks to Ynet for addressing this.

Update: Arutz Sheva also has an article citing Bob’s experts — and not citing any of the counterarguments.

The Israeli press is not acquitting itself well here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He added: “The damage to the roof looks to me very consistent with possible shrapnel penetration from an object other than a rocket or missile itself… The damage to the back window is certainly not consistent with any missile, bomb or rocket blast that would have occurred on impact if a rocket were fired around and directly at the vehicle.”

Hmmm….

Looks like we’ve got an expert horse race on our hands. I sure would like to hear some specifics from the IDF.

Pablo on August 31, 2006 at 1:12 PM

Bob linked my post in the post that Lappin cites, too, so presumably Lappin was aware that experts were making counterarguments.

The Lappin piece has a link to that post too, saying “Other blogs have discussed other possibilites…” Is that new?

Pablo on August 31, 2006 at 1:16 PM

Ha. Yeah, sure is. I just updated.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2006 at 1:20 PM

I just noticed that Bob’s expert called it the “back window” as well–which had confused AP and me for a while. The back window is a little bitty square inside a heavy steel door.

Wait–maybe there are two trucks, one with a cracked back window, one with a front windshield!!!! Plus the mysterious olive one–how deep does this go? HOW DEEP?

see-dubya on August 31, 2006 at 1:20 PM

The Israeli press is not acquitting itself well here.

Yeah, look at the headline. I didn’t know Bob spoke for the IDF.

see-dubya on August 31, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Heh.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Hey, in my defense, I linked ya twice in the article, and once more in the update.

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME!!!!

And unlike Greg Mitchell, I didn’t have to do it after the fact.

ahem.

Bob Owens on August 31, 2006 at 1:46 PM

Wow, I bet those armored vehicle execs weren’t expecting to make the papers.

I want to change my theory based on CY’s picture. Who knew the Israeli’s could field such a weapon of destruction? Have they no shame?!

NPP on August 31, 2006 at 4:21 PM

NPP
Great pic! But I could buy the concrete block theory except for one thing. The damage to the dashboard. A concrete block could not reach the velocity needed to do that kind of damage without punching completely through the roof. And the pictures clearly show only torn metal and deformation.

I stll stand by me theory and would still bet beer on it.

Bomb Doctor on August 31, 2006 at 4:47 PM

Why are you still beating this dead horse?

I’m at the point where I simply don’t care anymore. In war, stuff like this happens.

Maybe you should be asking the question and focusing as to why a supposedly reputable news agency is embedding with a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION in the first place?

georgej on August 31, 2006 at 5:15 PM