[demograph68]

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there's one problem: It never happened.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Is this more bad news for mainstream media and sloppy journalism in general? Or was the article deceptive in its analysis? I feel convinced that this was another example of something being faked in order to manipulate the public.

[red rocket]

Zombietime, typical.

That article is full of flaws and rife with Zionist, anti-Arab hatred.

First of all, Zombie claims that the ambulance incident was somehow the most dramatic thing about the entire conflict, even going so far to say that the outrage over it prompted the Israeli military to stand down when they were winning.

Not only is that false, it's completely unrealistic.

Next, the author goes on to vilify the media for using "inflammatory" tone in reporting the killing of civilians by the IDF. She then goes on to accuse media outlets of "idolizing" the ambulance drivers, offering no evidence for it, yet casually implying that they are somehow unworthy of concern or respect.

There follows some dubious pseudo-analysis of photographs, and then this:

Claim #8: The Lebanese ambulance drivers are politically neutral and would have no motivation to lie.

In this story from Inter Press Service News Agency, one of Chaalan's fellow Red Cross workers had this to say:

"As a Red Cross volunteer I need to be very clear that we are not political -- we rescue anyone who needs help," the 32-year-old Zatar told IPS. As a colleague unloaded bodies from bloody stretchers, Zatar said "whether they are civilian, a resistance fighter or an Israeli soldier, our policy is to help any human who needs help. But the Israelis seem to be attacking us now."

In the very sentence where he's trying to proclaim his neutrality, he reveals his political stance: Hezbollah militants are referred to as "resistance fighters."

He's obviously neutral, willing to help the enemy as well as anyone else. The author apparently is anything but.

Not surprising for somebody who reads Riehl World View and Michelle Malkin crap.

We're all being manipulated, one way or another.

[demograph68]

I don't know what to believe. I regret ever making this stupid ****ing thread.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Zombietime, typical.

That article is full of flaws and rife with Zionist, anti-Arab hatred.

First of all, Zombie claims that the ambulance incident was somehow the most dramatic thing about the entire conflict, even going so far to say that the outrage over it prompted the Israeli military to stand down when they were winning.

Not only is that false, it's completely unrealistic.

Next, the author goes on to vilify the media for using "inflammatory" tone in reporting the killing of civilians by the IDF. She then goes on to accuse media outlets of "idolizing" the ambulance drivers, offering no evidence for it, yet casually implying that they are somehow unworthy of concern or respect.

There follows some dubious pseudo-analysis of photographs, and then this:



He's obviously neutral, willing to help the enemy as well as anyone else. The author apparently is anything but.

Not surprising for somebody who reads Riehl World View and Michelle Malkin crap.

We're all being manipulated, one way or another.

Did you even look at the pictures? Those were old rusted out ambulances that the red vent on top was removed and then claimed to be the penetration point of a bomb.

The ignorant reporting of staged scenes are BS, and that is exactly what happened.

Reporters are too quick to report anything, even if it is a TOTAL LIE. They don't care, all they care about is getting a by line until the next lie.

[Chuckit]

They claim that two pictures are of the same ambulance when it's visually clear that they are not.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They claim that two pictures are of the same ambulance when it's visually clear that they are not.

There were two ambulances claimed to be hit. In the video, one clearly still has its windshield in place. That leaves one missing a windshield, so the photos showing windshield-less ambulances have to be the same one.

Unless, that is, some further 'staging' took place even after the "local amateur" video was shot.

One thing is for certain- the news media failed abysmally to fact check things like this during this conflict. If some website can notice and question blatant inconsistencies, why can't legitimate news agencies? They had access to the same and possibly better information and images. The only answers are either a willingness to be duped to keep with an action line, or blatant incompetence.

Whatever happened to journalism that it's gotten so shoddy that those are too often the choices?

[nathancunningham]

"visually clear that they are not"? What do you base this on? It seems to me the author went out of his way to point out the similar paint chips and damage to the roof to verify that they are the same ambulance. Could you provide an example that definitively shows they are NOT the same ambulance?

[Buckaroo]

Besides, if a Bomb really did hit the ambulance, you wouldn't find anything left of the ambulance. It would be in little pieces.

[Doofy]

I figured it was BS from day one (when I saw the ITN report live).

[yakkiebah]

It looks more like a bowling ball that hit the ambulance.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nathancunningham

"visually clear that they are not"? What do you base this on? It seems to me the author went out of his way to point out the similar paint chips and damage to the roof to verify that they are the same ambulance. Could you provide an example that definitively shows they are NOT the same ambulance?

He pointed out they both have chipped paint (you can't fully see how much paint is chipped in one of the pictures), but the damage is not the same. One of the holes has a silver ring around it, while the other has had the part with the silver ring mostly destroyed. They try to make it sound like the metal ring was just not visible in the first picture, but that really doesn't look like the case. Here are the two pictures:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/bostonbig.jpg
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/holeclose.jpg

And here's a third that is actually a better view of the first one:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambu...IMG_1127_2.jpg

It could be the same, I guess, but it doesn't really look like it.

[ghporter]

If ANY missile struck that ambulance, it would have been shredded steel in short order, NOT a recognizable ambulance with a hole in the top. Whatever else you might say about this report, it's clear that no actual military munition of the type described was used on the ambulance in the pictures.

And it does take a while, particularly in the Summer in that part of the world, for steel to rust as much as shown in those pictures...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

He pointed out they both have chipped paint (you can't fully see how much paint is chipped in one of the pictures), but the damage is not the same. One of the holes has a silver ring around it, while the other has had the part with the silver ring mostly destroyed. They try to make it sound like the metal ring was just not visible in the first picture, but that really doesn't look like the case. Here are the two pictures:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/bostonbig.jpg
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/holeclose.jpg

And here's a third that is actually a better view of the first one:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambu...IMG_1127_2.jpg

It could be the same, I guess, but it doesn't really look like it.

Those are just photos of the same thing from different angles. Also the rise and valleys of the dents obscures details from certain angles.

Anyway, if there were another ambulance with the same faked damage in the same places, it'd only be further proof of fraud.

[Troll]

Why did Israel admit to these attacks if they never took place?

The theory that the cover was removed is a rubbish theory. The missile or bomb or whatever it was, could easily have landed on the vent and passed through. In fact, if all it hit was a plastic vent, a canvas guerney and the floor of a VW Kombi, it might not have exploded at all - depending on what it was. These bloggers think they're experts on lots of thing. I used to work with ballistics experts every day (tracking bullets fired by the police) and it takes lot of hours and lots of maths and a deep knowledge of munitions to make any conclusions. I've seen the most unlikely stories proven true.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Explain the rust.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Why did Israel admit to these attacks if they never took place?

The theory that the cover was removed is a rubbish theory. The missile or bomb or whatever it was, could easily have landed on the vent and passed through. In fact, if all it hit was a plastic vent, a canvas guerney and the floor of a VW Kombi, it might not have exploded at all - depending on what it was. These bloggers think they're experts on lots of thing. I used to work with ballistics experts every day (tracking bullets fired by the police) and it takes lot of hours and lots of maths and a deep knowledge of munitions to make any conclusions. I've seen the most unlikely stories proven true.

Israel did NOT admit to these attacks.

Israel did what Israel ALWAYS does: Apologize first, investigate second, retract apology third- when appropriate.

Israel believes this to be the most honorable course of action.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Explain the rust.

It's a H2O bomb!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Troll

The theory that the cover was removed is a rubbish theory. The missile or bomb or whatever it was, could easily have landed on the vent and passed through.

I'm not usually one to defend Israel, but I gotta say, that would have been one hell of a shot; that cover is no more than 18 inches wide and the hole looks like an almost perfect circle, meaning that the bomb would have had to hit it square on. Also, the hole is square in the middle of the cross; almost like a bullseye. Also, those ambulances don't look like they were hit by anything more powerful than a couple of grenades; certainly not something that an aircraft would be dropping/firing.

I think Israel's innocent on this one.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm not usually one to defend Israel, but I gotta say, that would have been one hell of a shot; that cover is no more than 18 inches wide and the hole looks like an almost perfect circle, meaning that the bomb would have had to hit it square on. Also, the hole is square in the middle of the cross; almost like a bullseye. Also, those ambulances don't look like they were hit by anything more powerful than a couple of grenades; certainly not something that an aircraft would be dropping/firing.

I agree with you. Looking at the photos, it certainly doesn't seem like a missile hit it. However, the reasoning offered by the bloggers is way off. I've seen very unlikely stories proven true by ballistics analyses and there's an explanation for virtually every one of the "facts" the blogger provides. For example, I don't think anyone claimed that the rusty marks were from the missile that apparently hit the ambulance. Why does he assume they were? In any event, of course there is going to be propaganda on both sides.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Troll

For example, I don't think anyone claimed that the rusty marks were from the missile that apparently hit the ambulance. Why does he assume they were? In any event, of course there is going to be propaganda on both sides.

Riiiight, rust just happened to form every place a hole or dent would later be made by some "missile" or bullets, or whatever else caused the damage. Now that's convenient!

The rust proves that whatever caused the damage, did so a long time before the staged incident, IE: a long time before Israel could have had anything to do with it.

[ghporter]

I don't trust the blogger to be dispasionate myself. But NO EXPLOSIVE had anything to do with the vehicle in the pictures. Categorically and without any doubt.

And again, how'd it get so rusty between the supposed attack on the nicely painted ambulance and when the pictures were taken?

[Kevin]

When the little boy cries wolf enough, the people tend to ignore him.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I don't trust the blogger to be dispasionate myself. But NO EXPLOSIVE had anything to do with the vehicle in the pictures. Categorically and without any doubt.

That's pretty much my take as well. Maybe it had a bowling ball dropped on it, but explosions tend to involve, you know, blowing up and burning.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

It's a H2O bomb!

Water balloon. Those savage Israelis.

[Chuckit]

Hey, have you ever been hit by one of those giant water balloons they sell at the 99¢ store? Those things are no joke!

[Kevin]

The best water balloons are those easy busting grenade ones. Sometimes regular water balloons don't bust so easily, and a prank could be easily faulted because of them.

Water balloon and shaving cream battles rule.

Cept that menthol shaving cream. It gets up your nose and stings.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I don't trust the blogger to be dispasionate myself. But NO EXPLOSIVE had anything to do with the vehicle in the pictures. Categorically and without any doubt.

And again, how'd it get so rusty between the supposed attack on the nicely painted ambulance and when the pictures were taken?

How can you say no explosives were involved? Are you a ballistics expert? Have a look at this video of the Reuters jeep that was hit by an Israeli missile. Notice what the vehicle looks like. Not burned, not broken in half. The wheels didn't even come off. In fact, it looks pretty similar to that ambulance except that the armoured glass stayed in place. The missile seems to have made a small hole in the roof and exploded inside the vehicle without substantially damaging it. The point is that not every vehicle that gets hit by a missle disintegrates as that blogger seems to think happens. Who knows what munitions Israel is using but it seems that they do have something that manages to get inside a car and kill the occupants without too much damage to the vehicle itself.

As I said, no one said that the rusty areas were caused by the Israeli munitions. The blogger makes an assumption there. Maybe the Kombi had been damaged previously.

I agree with you, that as a layman, it seems unlikely to me. However, I would also have said that it was unlikely that the Reuters vehicle was hit by missiles.

Btw, the Reuters vehicle was attacked because it was "driving suspiciously". So you see what the standard is by which the Israeli Army kills people. If you're suspicious, you're dead. And remember, this is happening inside Gaza not Israel.

[Kevin]

Troll Needs to Beleive™

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

How can you say no explosives were involved? Are you a ballistics expert? Have a look at this video of the Reuters jeep that was hit by an Israeli missile. Notice what the vehicle looks like. Not burned, not broken in half. The wheels didn't even come off. In fact, it looks pretty similar to that ambulance except that the armoured glass stayed in place. The missile seems to have made a small hole in the roof and exploded inside the vehicle without substantially damaging it. The point is that not every vehicle that gets hit by a missle disintegrates as that blogger seems to think happens. Who knows what munitions Israel is using but it seems that they do have something that manages to get inside a car and kill the occupants without too much damage to the vehicle itself.

As I said, no one said that the rusty areas were caused by the Israeli munitions. The blogger makes an assumption there. Maybe the Kombi had been damaged previously.

I agree with you, that as a layman, it seems unlikely to me. However, I would also have said that it was unlikely that the Reuters vehicle was hit by missiles.

Btw, the Reuters vehicle was attacked because it was "driving suspiciously". So you see what the standard is by which the Israeli Army kills people. If you're suspicious, you're dead. And remember, this is happening inside Gaza not Israel.

Hello, this is the same Reuters that published the photoshopped photographs as news. Credibility? I'm still waiting for the results of their investigation. What? They aren't conducting one? Ah, ok.

And this vehicle is under the same scruntiny as not being hit by missiles.

Reuters in their caption of the photograph of the vehicle claims it was hit by TWO missiles.

Residents look at a press armored jeep after it was hit, according to witnesses, by an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006. Two missiles fired by Israeli aircraft early Sunday morning hit an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency, injuring two television cameramen and three bystanders, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. According to witnesses, the crew arrived to the Shajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza cover a nearby Israeli raid when the missiles hit the car. The Israeli army said it was checking the report.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

--- http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...43e95911e31b91

Two missiles hit it and the only damage is a dent and a small tear in the letter P of the word Press?

So yes, I agree- it IS unlikely that the vehicle was hit by a missile, leave alone TWO missiles. I think it's just an appeal for your sympathy, which has been successful.

As for the standards by which the Israeli army kills people, this vehicle was driving in night in an area of combat where soldiers are searching for tunnels and explosives being prepared by Palestinians. Reuters has an established history of supporting the terrorist propaganda in the form of faked pictures and inviting the terrorists to their bureau's offices for parties.

Who knows what they were doing there, supporting terrorist actions, or reporting news. If they were reporting news, they ought to know by now that they place themselves in harms way in the course of the job.

Painting PRESS on the roof does not make you invincible. It means the Palestinians may kidnap you or purposefully fire on you, and it means the Israelis might accidentally fire on you. In this case, I have to say that I don't think Israel fired two missiles on this vehicle.

[ghporter]

Missiles? Maybe, and then only in the strictest sense, because technically a bullet is a "missile." But NO, there was no "missile" in the common sense of a rocket powered, explosive-charged weapon involved in the Reuters jeep OR the ambulance. GUARANTEED.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

And this vehicle is under the same scruntiny as not being hit by missiles.

I wasn't aware of that, but that's typical. The bloggers are once again taking issue with this when the Israeli Army has already admitted that it took out the Reuters vehicle.

From the BBC:
"During the operation, there was an aerial attack on a suspicious vehicle that drove in a suspicious manner right by the forces and in between the Palestinian militant posts," Israeli army spokeswoman Capt Noa Meir said.

"This car was not identified by the army as a press vehicle. If journalists were hurt, we regret it."

I think your Yahoo article is outdated.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Reuters in their caption of the photograph of the vehicle claims it was hit by TWO missiles.

Absolutely, which makes the scenario worse for your argument. It is possible that Israel has a weapon that doesn't blow the vehicle to smithereens. It's possible that they have developed a bomb or a missile that breaks the outer shell of a vehicle and then fills the interior with shrapnel without actually destroying the entire vehicle.

Originally Posted by vmarks

As for the standards by which the Israeli army kills people, this vehicle was driving in night in an area of combat

An area of combat? It's a residential area! People live there. Israel didn't warn the residents of the area, it didn't impose a curfew on vehicle movements.

I said, this is territory that Israel likes to tell us is run by the Palestinian Authority and yet Israel sees fit to blow up vehicles because they are "suspicious". Israel also likes to tell us how accurate their precision weapons are and yet they managed to take out a vehicle clearly marked as a press vehicle.

And just to drive the point home, this is happening in Gaza folks. People say the Palestinians should engage in peaceful resistance. This is Ghandian peaceful resistance! They sit there while Israel fires missiles and bombs into their neighbourhoods at night. They sit there while Israel kidnaps their elected leaders, their fathers, their sons. They sit there while Israel constantly flies drones and helicopters overhead that might at any time randomnly blow up a car because its supicious or has someone in it that Israel doesn't like. And they might thereby become "collateral damage".

What would you say your overwhelming emotion is as a Palestinian walking around Gaza with this going on might be? Fear? Anger? A bit of both? Either way, the vast majority of them do absolutely nothing but sometimes try to make the most of a photo op or hold up signs! If that isn't the definition of peaceful resistance I don't know what is. 50 years of this oppression and terrorism from Israel and only a minority have taken up arms. Even those who have taken up arms have 50 year old machine guns and inaccurate rockets that manage to kill fewer Israelis in a year than motor accidents do. What would you do in their position?

Who knows what they were doing there, supporting terrorist actions, or reporting news. If they were reporting news, they ought to know by now that they place themselves in harms way in the course of the job.

[vmarks]

Once again you fail to understand.

Israel did NOT admit to anything. Israel did the standard response: apologize for anything and everything first, investigate second, and retract later.

Second, you're in science fiction land: a missile that explodes without damage yet somehow injects shrapnel inside? It is amazing the lengths to which you will employ your imagination in order to punish Israel.

Third, this is Reuters.

The same Reuters that willfully publishes faked photos and propaganda. The same Reuters that parties with terrorists.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...113222,00.html

And I'm telling you, Israel did not -clearly- take out a vehicle marked as PRESS. You've already bought the line that this vehicle was hit by Israeli missiles.

I'm telling you that it looks even less likely than the ambulance.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

And just to drive the point home, this is happening in Gaza folks. People say the Palestinians should engage in peaceful resistance. This is Ghandian peaceful resistance! They sit there while Israel fires missiles and bombs into their neighbourhoods at night.

Tell the folks in Sderot that the Qassams landing on them are Ghandian.

Even those who have taken up arms have 50 year old machine guns and inaccurate rockets that manage to kill fewer Israelis in a year than motor accidents do. What would you do in their position?

Teach the Israelis to be better drivers.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Israel did NOT admit to anything. Israel did the standard response: apologize for anything and everything first, investigate second, and retract later.

Israel admitted to hitting A suspicious vehicle. Where is that vehicle then if it's not this one? What do you think did happen to the Reuters vehicle then? Are you saying Israel actually hit a different vehicle and then someone disposed of that one and blew up the Reuters vehicle to make it look like Israel had killed yet more journalists.

From the Reporters sans Frontieres Website: "The Israeli military told the Associated Press the journalists were not targeted intentionally but “they should not have been there” during the operation. “There was no sign on the vehicle, at least we didn’t see any,” an Israeli military spokesman added." That is clearly Israel admitting that they hit a vehicle.

As for Israel's standard response, I call bullsh!t. I've often seen Israel deny attacks. I've never seen Israel later come back and admit attacks. Is this a documented approach that you can prove or is just an excuse?

Originally Posted by vmarks

Second, you're in science fiction land: a missile that explodes without damage yet somehow injects shrapnel inside?

Have you seen an anti-tank missile before? They are designed to pierce the skin of the skin and explode inside the tank. Very often, you can hardly notice that the tank has even been hit. Now what's so far fetched about building a similar thing for cars? Maybe Israel is trying to minimise collateral damage with these weapons.

Originally Posted by vmarks

The same Reuters that willfully publishes faked photos and propaganda.

A photographer faked some smoke in a photo. Reuters fired him. Just as many other news organisations have done. I don't know why you righties are so hung up on this anyway. What did the doctored photo say that the real photo didn't? So there was more smoke in the photo than there was in real life? What does that mean? Does it make people think Israel is using bigger bombs than it really is? The doctored photo for me had the same impact as the real photo but Reuters did the right thing to remove all of the photos from the photographer.

Originally Posted by vmarks

And I'm telling you, Israel did not -clearly- take out a vehicle marked as PRESS.

Israel admits to hitting that vehicle. Deal with it. They say it was a mistake. Israel also admitted to hitting the ambulance or seen through your rosy glasses, they never came back to deny their original statement that they were responsible. All I'm saying is that a blogger is not qualified to say what did or did not happen.

But the bigger point here is look at the conditions the Palestinians are living in. This is what nights are like for Palestinian civilians. Drones and helicopters circling, Israel blowing up cars in their streets, people being adbucted by Israel. Even if they wanted to and had the means to, they can't leave Gaza. They're in a pen that Israel takes pot shots into every night. And how do they respond? Do they all get up and attack Israel? No they don't. Only a minority do. The rest should get a Nobel Peace Prize for peacefully going about their lives while Israel denies them basic human rights and openly attacks them.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Tell the folks in Sderot that the Qassams landing on them are Ghandian.

How many people have died in Sderot from Qassams? I haven't been able to find a record of any deaths despite the fact that the Qassams have been fired since 2000. Maybe the residents of Sderot have an inkling of the hell that Palestinians go through. Maybe they too should be commended for their peaceful resistance (to the extent that the Israeli Army doesn't represent them).

I did find that in response, in a single operation in 2004, the Israelis killed 16 Palestinians, injured 119, destroyed more than 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of farmland and 14 factories in Gaza. Roads were ploughed up and sewage spread across the roads from burst pipes, homes destroyed.

Here's quote from the Guardian:

Khalil Zaneen, 62, owned the house behind the rubble. He said there were 40 people sheltering in his home as the soldiers laid explosives around his neighbour's house. "They would not allow us to leave and when they set the explosives off it was terrifying. The house shook and the children cried," he said.

Basel Janeen, a relative of the two families of 11 people living in the destroyed house, said: "Even if we had the money I don't know if the Israelis would let us rebuild it. They might just blow it up again."

The Janeen family have little sympathy for the residents of Sderot but say they long for peace and stability.

Khalil Basel, a policeman, 29, said: "They didn't give us a reason. We have no martyrs and no rockets were fired from here. They said they just wanted to clear the way.

"They do not think of us and we do not think of them and our lives are different. We sleep in tents under watchtowers and they don't think for a moment when they use F-16s, tanks and Apache helicopters against us.

"I say stop firing the Qassam rockets. Stop the incursions and let's go back to the negotiating table. But I don't think that will work. Sharon just wants to invade and destroy.

"Look at the ceasefire last year. Not one rocket fired but the incursions and assassinations continued. In the West Bank there are no Qassam rockets but there are incursions and Palestinians killed.

"When someone takes your home away from you, you don't just shut up and accept it. Resistance is resistance. But I say enough is enough. Let's put a stop to it. But do the Israelis ever say enough is enough?"

Imagine your home and your farm and food supply were destroyed while you watched. Imagine the roads were destroyed, imagine jets circled over your head all the time, watch towers looked on your every movement. I put myself in that position and I'll tell you something, I'm not sure I wouldn't be queuing for Qassam duty. I think it's absolutely friggin' amazing that the Janeen family isn't involved in the resistance. And if they are, it's perfectly understandable that they are after what they've been through.

On the other side of the border, the residents of Sderot call for violent resistance. They go on a hunger strike to demand that Israel attack Gaza. How come that is an understandable reaction but the reaction of Palestinian militants and the people who support them is not?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Missiles? Maybe, and then only in the strictest sense, because technically a bullet is a "missile." But NO, there was no "missile" in the common sense of a rocket powered, explosive-charged weapon involved in the Reuters jeep OR the ambulance. GUARANTEED.

Someone just stared at it really meanly I bet.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

I put myself in that position and I'll tell you something, I'm not sure I wouldn't be queuing for Qassam duty. I think it's absolutely friggin' amazing that the Janeen family isn't involved in the resistance. And if they are, it's perfectly understandable that they are after what they've been through.

Thanks for admitting your biases, your willingness to sign up to commit acts of violence, and excusing that violence. Good job.

On the other side of the border, the residents of Sderot call for violent resistance. They go on a hunger strike to demand that Israel attack Gaza. How come that is an understandable reaction but the reaction of Palestinian militants and the people who support them is not?

The Sderot civilians went on a hunger strike as a means of calling attention to themselves and asking the ministry of defense to do its job, defend them. This was after 26 rockets fell on Sderot in a period of a weekend.

If hunger-striking isn't Ghandian, what is, pray tell? If petitioning your government to DO ITS JOB isn't justifiable, what is?

[vmarks]

Oh, the International Red Cross website has removed the hi-res image of the ambulance in question, which also removes the EXIF information telling exactly when the pic was taken and with which camera.

I wonder why they would do that?

[Spliffdaddy]

So the kidnapped FOX news reporters were made to convert to Islam - at gunpoint. Way to go, Palestinians. Thanks for showing your true intent.

The reporters praised the Palestinian people after their release - then, naturally, high-tailed it to Israel...where people aren't kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam.

Convert to Islam or die...whoa, that sounds exactly like the goal of all Islamic terrorists!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Oh, the International Red Cross website has removed the hi-res image of the ambulance in question, which also removes the EXIF information telling exactly when the pic was taken and with which camera.

I wonder why they would do that?

Well, it's possible they couldn't handle the bandwidth from all of the attention.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Well, it's possible they couldn't handle the bandwidth from all of the attention.

Pretty unlikely. The International Committee of the Red Cross is a gigantic multinational organization, whose web site is critical to their operation in many ways and must stay online even during large emergencies. It’s extremely unlikely that the bandwidth drain from a link at zombietime (even at its busiest) would prompt them to remove the photo.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The Sderot civilians went on a hunger strike as a means of calling attention to themselves and asking the ministry of defense to do its job, defend them. This was after 26 rockets fell on Sderot in a period of a weekend.

If hunger-striking isn't Ghandian, what is, pray tell? If petitioning your government to DO ITS JOB isn't justifiable, what is?

Hold on, I said that the residents of Sderot had also reacted in a laudable fashion.

If the Palestinians had a real government, it would be ITS job to protect Palestinians from Israeli violence, would it not? Palestinians elected a government that, amongst other things, calls for the use of violence to protect Palestinians from Israeli incursions. I don't see the difference here. Why should Israelis be entitled to use violence to "protect" themselves from Palestinian rockets but Palestinians are not entitled to use violence to protect themselves against Israeli rockets?

The residents of Sderot are justified in turning to violence after 5 years of missiles landing on them (with limited effect) but you expect the Palestinians not to turn to violence after 50 years of missiles landing on them (with devestating effect).

The bulk of the Palestinian population is living under conditions that are as bad as or worse than those the residents of Sderot are living under. And only a tiny minority of them have turned to violent resistance.

I absolutely understand that the residents of Sderot want their Army to go into Gaza and take out the people responsible for launching missiles into their village. Equally, I understand that the Janeen family would support militants who go into Israel to take out the people responsible for destroying their home and their farm and their roads and their factories.

This is precisely why I say that you are naiive to think that Israel is ever going to be able to smack the Palestinians into submission. The craziness of this idea you have that the Palestinian resistance will be broken by Israel seriously punishing them is evidenced by the residents of Sderot going on a hunger strike. The residents of Sderot are no more likely to give up in the face of violence than the residents of Gaza are.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Oh, the International Red Cross website has removed the hi-res image of the ambulance in question, which also removes the EXIF information telling exactly when the pic was taken and with which camera.

I wonder why they would do that?

vmarks they want to believe it's true no matter what the facts say.

They don't care about what is true, but what they think they can make stick.

It's pathetic.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

vmarks they want to believe it's true no matter what the facts say.

They don't care about what is true, but what they think they can make stick.

It's pathetic.

You'll note, I think it's unlikely that these ambulances were hit by anything dropped or fired from an aircraft. I just think there are more possible reasons for the Red Crosses removal of the high rez images than deception.

[Sky Captain]

How about a fake strike on an Israeli warship.

Man the media is gulliable. Or just ****in stupid. In any event, not to be trusted to report the truth. Ever.

[Chuckit]

Why should I trust you to be telling the truth?

[vmarks]

Chuckit, don't trust him.

That ship was sunk by the Australian government, and it was one of their own ships. That HizbAllah's media spokesmen used that picture to claim they sunk an Israeli ship is fact. That the ship was sunk off Australia also is fact.

The Herald Sun in Australia is a newspaper of record. You can decide whether or not to place your trust in their reporting and commentary on this fraud perpetrated by HizbAllah.

[Troll]

Hezbollah did sink an Israeli warship though. Or do you deny that too vmarks? Is this part of the Israeli policy of admit your warship was sunk and then deny it later.

It was a pretty powerful moment for the Arab world when Nasrallah said something like, "They try to tell you that we are being routed. I say look in the sea off Beirut and see their ship burning." Israel of course initially denied it and then later had to admit that one of their ships had been hit.

Both sides use propaganda. Why this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me.

[vmarks]

HizbAllah did not sink an Israeli ship. They HIT an israeli ship. They claimed to sink one, and when asked for pictures, they distributed the Australian ship photo as evidence.

The Ahi Hanit was hit but not sunk, and returned to port in Ashdod, Israel, for repairs.

The weapon used was an Iranian C-802 radar-guided Silkworm missile.

The ship that HizbAllah sank was an Egyptian ship. Most reports are calling it an Egyptian ship, one report I found called it a Cambodian ship with Egyptian crew. All reports agree that the crew consisted of 12 Egyptians who were picked up by passing ships.

And you once again have misunderstood Israel's practice: Someone accuses Israel of something horrific. Israel apologizes and investigates. On revealing Israel's innocence, Israel retracts apologies. On finding guilt, Israel convicts responsible parties.


Summary of attack on IDF missile ship


Yesterday, July 14, 2006, An IDF missile ship, "Ahi Hanit", was hit by a missile that was launched from the Lebanese coast. As a result of the attack, fire erupted on board. The crew members on board managed to control the damage, but four crew members were declared missing. New findings were discovered and submitted for further examination.

The four crew members are:

Sgt. Yaniv Hershkovitz, 21, resident of Haifa.
Cpl. Shai Atias, 19, resident of Rishon Lezion.
1st Sgt. Dov Steinshos, 37, resident of Karmiel
Staff Sgt. Tal Amgar, 21, resident of Ashdod,
During searches on the ship, the body of Staff Sgt. Tal Amgar, 21, resident of Ashdod, was identified. The ship sailed back to Ashdod port. The remains of the three missing soldiers were found where the ship was hit. The bodies were identified on July 16.

During the incident, Israeli navy ships identified an explosion on an Egyptian commercial ship while was sailing in international territorial waters. It is assured that the ship was struck by a similar missile that hit the Israeli boat. The Egyptian ship sank and its crew was rescued by another nearby commercial ship.

The Israeli Navy will continue to enforce the naval blockade on Lebanese ports and has also attacked earlier this morning a number of Hizbullah targets around Beirut.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Link to Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Well, I saw the ship burning. If it didn't sink, that's impressive. Still, it was a media coup for Nasrallah to be able to point to a destroyed and burning Israeli ship just when Israel was telling the world how it was routing Hezbollah.

Where do the missiles Israel was using against Lebanon come from?