It certainly does have an impact. You can't spray an area with bullets using a typical handgun. Also, there is likely to be less significant collateral damage when the weapon being used is not automatic.
They don't spray an area, the weapon is mostly used in a semi-auto mode especially in close combat, and you actually can spray an area with a typical handgun.
Bottom line, if they wanted to go crazy and shoot everywhere, they could do it with either a jericho or a micro-Uzi or any other type of sidearm.
It is one thing to say "pistol" and another to not clarify what kind of pistol. This would be the same as saying "rifle" without clarifying what kind of rifle. There is a huge difference and ultimately many seized upon the unqualified use of the term "pistol" to claim something that is ultimately wrong.
Exactly, it would be like saying that they've carried an assault rifle without saying whether it is an AK-47, a G3, an M16, etc. There is no misleading here, it seems like you're desperately trying to hang onto absurd and non-existent details to comfort yourself when you know that the IDF has not lied about anything.
I did not say it would be entirely conclusive, however it would be much more than simply compelling.
If it is compelling it is compelling and if it is conclusive it is conclusive, and what you claim to be "evidence" is, as I've shown with my examples, neither conclusive nor compelling. One cannot even favor one conclusion over another from the knowledge that a person was shot from close range in the back.
This seems to indicate you know of the video, but are imposing conditions you know will not allow the video to be noted. The video by itself would not be compelling, but with the various other facts we have it becomes compelling.
I don't know what you're talking about, or more likely what video you're talking about. I've seen no video where a person is being shown as he is shot on the Mavi Marmara, so please unless such video does not exist and you're merely making up evidence to try and base your ridiculous claims do post this video.
The general cited in the article mentions one of the machine pistols being used on the soldiers. Evidence indicates only that three were taken and various eyewitness testimonies corroborate that at least one was taken only to be emptied. In that circumstance with the one gun being mentioned, as well as the nature of the gun, it provides an explanation for a number of things. Soldiers claimed to have been hit with automatic weapons fire as I recall and since we are talking about a machine pistol it seems likely this one weapon accounts for that. That one weapon, however, would no adequately explain many, if any, of the wounds we are talking about.
Actually the soldiers have claimed that they were being shot at with assault rifles, and in the Eiland committee conclusion it was mentioned that due to the wounds in the soldiers' bodies and to objects that were left on board of the ship it seems that 2 assault rifles were indeed brought on the ship by the activists, used against the soldiers, and thrown once the violence was close to an end.
You think it is far more likely because you do not want to believe that Israeli soldiers might cross a line, even though you know Israeli soldiers have done just that many times before. It is very hard to see how a person would accidentally fire once into the back of someone's head while less than half a meter away.
It is actually very easy to see as I've explained before, there are countless of possible situations when this happens, and we were speaking on likely situations so this is one of them.
I do not leave out possibilities either, but it seems you are definitely giving greater weight to less likely possibilities because they are more comforting to you.
That's quite ridiculous, it is you who are arguing that they were executed while it is me who is leaving all possibilities open.
You are not merely giving a greater weight, but are completely taking to the belief that soldiers have executed individuals who pose no threat on board of that ship, if only to comfort yourself.
It is not very likely at all, because we have very strong evidence that at least one of the people killed did not pose a threat.
I'm still waiting for this evidence, as explained above you have no such evidence.
I really don't care what Islamic Jihad says. They have a variety of reasons for wanting to make such a claim and ultimately that does not prove anything either.
Actually they have no sane reason to shoot their own leg like that by going against Islamist anti-Israeli propaganda such as the one surrounding the flotilla, they removed the pictures and articles a short time after uploading them to their website and have got angry at YNET for exposing those pictures.
Besides that those are authentic pictures, and the ones shown in them are indeed Turkish activists from the IHH.
It is interesting to see however how you go from one argument to another once the former is being destroyed, instead of simply accepting the truth.
Many humanitarian organizations would want the blockade almost entirely lifted and IHH would naturally have to work with organizations that have authority there. Some being politically inclined to support those organizations and feeling a sense of solidarity with them indicates nothing.
Well as it was explained to you by praising the terrorist organization of Hamas, holding weapons of Hamas, wearing clothes of Hamas and taking pictures with Hamas soldiers, those people are most likely pro-Hamas, pro-terrrorist, and due to their words in their praising of Hamas' actions, blood-thirsty animals, nothing less and nothing more.
It exposes the true agenda behind the IHH which was also behind the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara, an agenda that was obvious to Israel all the time yet was constantly and strongly denied by the anti-Israeli propaganda machine.
I was making a comparison to the fact many rural towns in the United States like mine are full of people who like toting around guns and wearing camo i.e. dressing up like soldiers. Them doing it indicates certainly that they support Hamas and Islamic Jihad in their fight against Israel, but to take that fact and us it to suggest people from the same organization are going to try and engage in a deadly fight with Israel themselves is just absurd.
That has to be the silliest comparison I've ever seen. I mean, what? Because they're wearing soldiers' uniforms (American soldiers most likely) then it means they support Hamas? What the ****?
If they were taking picture with
Hamas soldiers while they are wearing
Hamas' uniforms and holding
Hamas' weapons and praising
Hamas' actions, then it can be said that they are strongly supportive of the terrorist organization of Hamas.
It would be no more legitimate than me saying all Israeli soldiers are war criminals simply because some have engaged in war crimes.
Those folks have engaged in support for terrorism while representing their organization. It was a diplomatic meeting between two organizations, the Gazan terror organization of Hamas, and the Turkish terror-supporting organization of IHH.
I am not disputing whether it is technically a sidearm or technically a pistol, but rather whether this was being stated in a manner that mislead or deceived people.
There is no deception in saying that you have a sidearm when you indeed have a sidearm. Micro-Uzi is by no means less of a sidearm simply because it is automatic, sidearms can be automatic and they can be semi-automatic and they can be anything, they're all however sidearms, and by admitting to that fact one sees that there was zero amount of deception in the IDF words, there was only the description of what was confirmed to be the truth, that soldiers were equipped with sidearms.
Your constant attempts to deceive and mislead about the IDF words and intentions happen to be quite desperate as they depend entirely on your willing to believe that the IDF has misled about its soldiers' equipment when indeed they have not.
Both of these weapons might be considered sidearms, but failing to note the considerable differences between them does create a bias towards your position. Someone hearing or seeing the former weapon fire will view the situation from an entirely different perspective than if it concerned the latter weapon.
But if the person using either weapons in the video would be telling the youtube dwellers that it is a sidearm, he would not be misleading them, even if the video would not have shown the sidearm in action, as it is indeed a sidearm. Hence no deception, like no deception would exist if he would telling them that he has an assault rifle and then showed himself shooting with a G3, an M16, an AK-47, etc.
