Will it change US policy? One can always hope.
The results 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
Dr Haluk Ince, the chairman of the council of forensic medicine in Istanbul,
said that in only one case was there a single bullet wound, to the forehead from
a distant shot, while every other victim suffered multiple wounds. "All [the
bullets] were intact. This is important in a forensic context. When a bullet
strikes another place it comes into the body deformed. If it directly comes into
the body, the bullet is all intact."
The only one shot with one bullet was shot between the eyes from a longer range. That screams sniper and a shoot to kill policy, does it not? Does it say self defense to anyone?
Also, that is quite a few shots in the head and backs and backs of heads to be self defense. If you're truly in a struggle for your life, how do you shoot someone in the back of the head? What would our American courts say about that? I guess a buddy (or 5) could have come from the opposite direction to save the day. If in each of these cases, the soldier's life was hanging in the balance, and in each case that soldier had a buddy on the opposite side (to shoot the guy in the back of the head), then one could argue that the lethal situation could have been avoided.
Also, there is an account of a guy shot through the top of the head from a helicopter. If that is looked into, surely that could provide some insight as to who started it, whether Israelis acted in self defense, whether they shot ot kill, etc. Proof of shooting from the air certainly would disprove the Israeli line as well.
In the Democracy Now reports, eyewitnesses have said they heard shots before the soldiers boarded. If the soldiers are claiming the protesters stole the sidearms, I guess the shots would have come from Israeli commandos, contradicting the official Israeli line they are feeding us- protesters attacked first. We still have no credible info on who started this thing.
You have to wonder what the Israeli definition of attack is, though. I, and probably most folks, assume guns aimed at Israelis. In the past, rocks and school backpacks have justified murder by tank and automatic weapon fire, so there's no telling what they consider an "attack" or "threat".
A question that remains for me is why send commandos in to meet an aid ship about to supposedly violate the Gaza blockade that Israel contends is totally legal- much like settlements and the occupation and the rest of the collective punishment. Why not send diplomats, lawyers, etc to ask to board or discuss instead? Why not offer for UN or other international group to inspect the cargo at the Gaza port before sending in commandos?