The photograph is of Furkan Dogan, 19*, a student at Kayseri High School who wanted to be a doctor. He was the son of Dr. Ahmet Dogan, Associate Professor at Erciyes University. Dogan was a Turkish-American dual national, with two siblings. (link link link).
He's dead.
The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency.
The New York Times, which had briefly reported this, has since excised it from its copy. All the news that fits, they print.
That's some lethal paintball gun, there, chaverim.
[H/t Lawrence of Cyberia and Rusty Idols]
UPDATE: (June 4)
I said "execution" and I meant "execution."
The nine Turkish dead were shot thirty times at close range:
The results [of the autopsies] revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
So we must assume, if we listen to the morally imbecilic hasbaraniks infesting the blogosphere at the moment, that the "terrorists" not only planned an ambush with no firearms, but decided that running backwards towards the IDF was a sensible mode of attack.
[H/t Holly Stick in the comments]
UPDATE: (June 10)
Furkan Dogan's last moments? (NB: the authenticity of this video, which appeared on Turkish newscasts today, is not confirmed.)
Meanwhile we learn, much to our shock, that the Gaza blockade isn't about security.
[H/t reader lenny]
UPPERDATE: It now appears that the video was "creatively edited."
______________
Note: Reader "Zog" questioned the age of Dogan in the photograph, and he appears to have a point. Here is one from November 2008.
13 comments:
Of course they are activists--just not in a cause I support. (And that goes for Hamas, too.)
This writer has a different frame of reference on Gaza--worth a read.
@Mike:
My question, then, remains: what does it show?
he does, actually.
*I have no idea what's wrong with "activist" unless we're back to "activists
can't say mean things". "Militants" sounds like people who came for a
fight, which is a very strange characterization from someone who insists
that we don't have all the facts yet.
"Passengers" is quite literally accurate, except for those who were "crew".*
Fair enough. All of the terms either are loaded or meaningless. To me
"activist" isn't a neutral terms and connotes something different than what
we've seen in the various videos (assuming they're authentic)--for me it
makes me think of someone at a sit in, so using the term before we know
everything seems to pre-judge the facts. But there is a definition here
which is broader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
Guest,
I guess Dawg doesn't want to lay anymore of the Israeli imperialists' victims at their feet. It's enough to condemn them for the Arab victims of Israeli violence.
"liberal supporter" posted here earlier as "Doofus." I think s/he should have stuck with that.
Why continue these desperate alibis to justify your delight in killing, Jay? An IDF narrative in the J-Post isn't fact. It's lies, and not very good ones.
Here are allegedly trained, organized mercenaries, going up against trained, organized IDF commandos. The former decide a) not to use guns because it would ruin their credibility, but b) they brought them along anyway and threw them overboard, except for a convenient bit of brass left here and there for the IDF to find, and c) when they got the chance they grabbed a couple of pistols from the IDF and opened fire anyway--running backwards as they did so (five of the nine dead were shot in the back).
How many contradictory thoughts can you hold in your head at one time?
Now, having quickly switched ships, you raise the matter of a crazy Malaysian who isn't even on board. That somehow makes the mission "anti-Semitic," and my defence of the folks on the first ship "anti-Semitic" and me "anti-Semitic." The next time you stand up for Marc Lemire, perhaps I shall be less nuanced in my description of the Speech Warriors, if that's going to be your logic.
There are more than two sides here, but your simplistic binary thinking can't accommodate that.
Thank god you're a gutless sociopath, Currie.
Usually imbeciles of your calibre are conservative supporters.
Exception to every rule I suppose.
Just a couple of quick points, because I really shouldn't get diverted from my June task, but
1) I have never expected resisters of oppression to be composed of saintly, tolerant, Gandhi-like people. Strong, even intolerant and hateful feelings are more likely. But the nature of the mission, not a few intolerant statements, should be the deciding factor in how we judge the outcome. This was not a flotilla of suicide bombers.
2) Of course the mission was to bust the blockade. It's an illegal blockade, it's causing hardship, it's collective punishment, and it needs to be trashed.
3) Hasbaraniks have pounced on various statements along the lines of "Gaza or Bust," with a martyrdom twist. For the life of me I don't understand the criticism. These people were literally willing to die to get their aid through the cordon, and some clearly expected they would. That says more about their (subsequently-proven) view of the IDF than it does about any violent intentions on their part.
4) So the spin may be that the militants were shooting each other in the back? (Some of them, of course, must have been dervishes, since they were shot in front and in back.) Wouldn't surprise me: the hasbara factory is desperately in need of raw material at the moment.
A thoughtful article. Many thanks for the link.
Inu Sensei,
"How could anyone with the slightest intellectual honesty claim that Israel and its Navy were the victims of a boat which Jon Stewart said last night looked like"P Diddy's St. Bart's vacation yacht"; or that armed Israeli commandos were the victims of unarmed civilian passengers; or, more generally, that a nuclear-armed Israel with the most powerful military by far in the Middle East and the world's greatest superpower acting as Protector is the persecuted victim of a wretched, deprived, imprisoned, stateless population devastated by 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation and, just a year ago, an unbelievably destructive invasion and bombing campaign? "
a new stage in the use of h-u-m-a-n s-h-i-e-l-d-s.
Israel is on the front line of combatting this new twist in warfare, which ought to be declared a war crime (seeing as how commenters on this blog are so free with that term), and we have to ask if we could have done any better.
As I said, pity about Turkey. I remember what Roger Scruton used to say about Turkey being part of the West nowadays, and used to agree, but alas ......
oh and by the way
apparently it should be "Sa'id Yahya Namsiya", not "Namsa", I'm still feeling my way here.
It seems to me your trolling used to be a bit more subtle. Going through a rough patch, or just completely out of ideas?
Post a Comment