George Galloway responds to Greg Palast

[mnhtnbb]

George Galloway, in only the way he can, nails Greg Palast.
There's been a lot of discussion among DU'ers about Palast's
allegations.

Here's the link:

http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/response/

And if you are staying over Saturday night in DC, you can still get tickets to hear Galloway in person at the last event on his book tour.


Here's the link for tickets:

http://www.ticketweb.com/user/?region=xxx&query=search&interface=ticketweb&newhps=1®ionid=28&genre=none&date=next30days&x=8&y=8

[meganmonkey]

1. Here's a link to what Palast wrote about Galloway

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=457&row=0

I post this in the interest of fairness to Mr. Palast.

[wtmusic]

2. You go George! nt

[TyeDye75]

3. I like this bit

"The stumblebum then drags in Hitchens — perhaps it’s two bums finding mutual support"

The idiots keep lining up and getting smacked down, its amazing what a leftist can do with facts and a backbone.

[rinsd]

6. More like hero worship raging out of control....

This isn't Rush or Hannity...this is Palast.

[Strawman]

16. Exactly

Palast is no hack. After reading this exchange and Palast's blog, Palast seems more credible to me. Galloway's praise of Saddam doesn't seem to be taken out of context at all. If anything, the context seems to reinforce Palast's criticism. What's sad is the fact that there is such a fucking political vacuum from the lack of real opposition by Democrats to this war that so many people will turn to the first person who does and embrace them uncritically. I agree with much if not all of what Galloway said before the Senate, but he's not my hero and the criticism of his record by Palast seems fair.

[K-W]

18. Seems more credible?

Well thats awefully persuasive.

Galloway's praise of Saddam doesn't seem to be taken out of context at all. If anything, the context seems to reinforce Palast's criticism.

How so?

What's sad is the fact that there is such a fucking political vacuum from the lack of real opposition by Democrats to this war that so many people will turn to the first person who does and embrace them uncritically.

Except that Galloway isnt the first person who did so, he is one of many who are doing so, and there is nothing wrong with supporting him in doing so regardless of his past.

If he was currently praising Saddam in his speeches, you would have a point. But since he isnt, there is no reason to attack people supporting him as an effective anti-war voice. Nobody is holding him up as the ideal human being.

I agree with much if not all of what Galloway said before the Senate, but he's not my hero and the criticism of his record by Palast seems fair.

Seem fair?

Are they fair? Why are you drawing conclusions if you havent checked the facts?

[Strawman]

20. So past statements have no bearing on assesment of someone's credibility?

Personally, I think they do matter. Someone's credibility is based on their entire record, not one grand performance. As for how I conclude that the full context undercuts Galloway, here is how. Read this. If you have no problem with that, good for you. I do.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=461&row=0

"But what gets me most about the infamous 1994 speech is not the 'Sir, I salute you...' part. His excuse is that his "salute" was meant for the Iraqi people, not Saddam. I must take exception to that, because Galloway also said: "I thought the president would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam."

It is this portion of the speech that makes his excuses and regrets least convincing.

If he was denouncing Saddam and feeling concern for the Iraqis who had to live under his terror why then say those words to their oppressor?"

How is something like that possibly "out of context?" Nonsense.

But whatever, let's all turn on a credible journalist like Greg Palast http://www.gregpalast.com/aboutme.cfm because Karl Rove says Galloway is supposed to be our hero. No thanks.

[K-W]

29. I said nothing of the sort.

My point was that there are issues of fact at stake here, so who cares what seems credible. Which person do the facts support?

If he was denouncing Saddam and feeling concern for the Iraqis who had to live under his terror why then say those words to their oppressor?"

Because he was trying to persuade Saddam.

How is something like that possibly "out of context?" Nonsense

When I asked you to explain to me your point about his words in context, I expected you to quote his words in context. Instead you quoted Greg Palast, quoting Galloway. That tells me nothing at all about his words in context.

And I never suggested anyone turn on Greg Palast. Even Greg Palast can be wrong.

[Strawman]

36. I think Palast has exceeded his burden of proof here

Let me ask you, what in the full text of Galloway's comments proves that he is being taken out of context there? How much more context is needed than these quotes that heap direct effusive praise on Saddam from Galloway? Greg Palast didn't say those words about naming babies after Saddam, Galloway did, those are quotes from him. If that kind of boot-licking is ok with you in a supposed effort to "persuade" Saddam, fine. I'm certainly not comfortable with it.

And while it's true you didn't go after Palast, if you go up the thread you'll see post #3 applauded Galloway's name calling of Palast. That's what I was referring to.

[K-W]

37. Proof? What are you talking about?

Let me ask you, what in the full text of Galloway's comments proves that he is being taken out of context there?

Sure, after you backup your statement:
If anything, the context seems to reinforce Palast's criticism.

You made a claim about the context, you still havent backed it up.

How much more context is needed than these quotes that heap direct effusive praise on Saddam from Galloway? reg Palast didn't say those words about naming babies after Saddam, Galloway did, those are quotes from him. If that kind of boot-licking is ok with you in a supposed effort to "persuade" Saddam, fine. I'm certainly not comfortable with it.

When did I say it was OK with me? You seem awefully fond of repeating the quotes, but it really isnt neccessary, weve both read them.

[personman]

40. I'll take the guy who...

kisses the devil's ass in an attempt to save peoples' lives over someone who passes on the opportunity because of their selfishness and the aesthetics of the situation.

I think it is a STRONGER person who can put aside their personal feelings for the greater good, and that is what Galloway was doing if he's to be believed. I don't see any good reason not to take him at his word.

-personman

[IndyOp]

47. Here, here!

I'm concerned about some Galloway statements (Did he really tell Salmon Rushdie that someone who criticizes a religion should suffer the consequences?) - but I am not overly concerned about his kissing a bit of Saddam butt to try and save some lives.

Also - important context: Many people in Galloway's 'district' are Muslim. I would like to see Galloway's views compared to those of his constiuents to understand more. Hussein became a hero to many Middle Easterners as a result of the US' vicious attack on Iraq during the Gulf War and as a result of the deadly UN/US economic sanctions.

:kick:

[reorg]

48. no he didn't

Galloway has a way with words, as we all know. Very nuanced and precise. What he said was different:

"If you don't respect religion, you have to suffer the consequences."

You better show respect to a terrified bulldog or else he may bite you.

[henslee]

8. And this one.

(refering to Palast's work) "it seems like the deranged ramblings you might expect to find pushed out from under the door of a locked ward."

This guy can do stand up. He should go on Stern. Would he? I think he would.

[turbo_satan]

24. Palast is one of the good guys...

When Palast is passionate about something, I listen. I haven't read enough to judge one way or the other, but I don't think he'd stick his neck out like this if there weren't something of substance to his allegations against Galloway. I think very highly of both men and I hope there's a rational explanation for their mutual animosity that doesn't involve malfeasance by either party -- they are both very powerful and eloquent enemies of the larger enemy that we all face and we would be well-served, indeed, if they were on the same team.

[personman]

41. I don't know anything about this Palast...

but it seems to me most people with the most venom for Galloway are pro-iraq-war, or DLC dems.

To my knowledge, I havn't heard a single criticism of Galloway from someone who didn't have an agenda that might motivate them. So untill I see a good reason to distrust Galloway, I'll take all the criticism with a grain of salt. I'm familiar enough with media demonization to make up my own mind.

[turbo_satan]

44. Palast is neither pro-Iraq-war nor a DLC Dem. Not even close.

Have a look at http://www.gregpalast.com

Palast is one of the great muckrakers of our time. He was the journalist who blew the lid on the theft of the 2000 election in Florida and he has written extensively about the Bush family's evil deeds. He's also quite tight with Hugo Chavez and he's been a long-time thorn in Pat Robertson's side. As I'm *far* more familiar with Palast than I am with Galloway (having only recently learned about him for the first time -- which I suspect is the case for most of us on this side of the pond), my natural inclination is to side with Palast, who has yet to let me down. But I'm keeping an open mind.

As for media demonization, most media in the US won't go NEAR Palast. He's waaaaay too controversial for them. The only major media who give him a voice are in the UK.

[personman]

45. Hmm, that's cool...

Hmm seems like an alright guy, but if he doesn't have some sort of agenda I don't understand why he would, not only be so hostile towards Galloway, but be recycling the same RW talking points about him that he was in front of congress to refute the first time I ever saw him.

I also consider myself open-minded though, and I'm quite sure none of us have all the facts, so I can't really draw any real conclusions from this. Just seems odd to me why one lefty would attack another for seemingly no real good reason, that's all.

-personman

[stillcool]

4. isn't that an interesting twist?

Looks like the brits do crucifixions just like we do.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

5. He is incredible

I wish he could run for President here.

Palast should get his head on straight about Galloway.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Or, then again, perhaps Palast is right about Galloway

and doesn't need to do anything of the sort.

We've respected Palast's view in the past, haven't we?

[mrfrapp]

14. The problem is...

The problem here is that Palast didn't offer any new evidence with regards to Galloway. He simply trotted out the same old smears that have been rebutted again and again and it's getting boring.

There's plenty about Galloway people might not like and there's many a quote that bring into question his character and for that reason I would keep him at arm's length; but these idle accusations of fraud and what-have-you are frankly, bizarre.

I respect Palast's view and he's one of my favourite investigative journalists but there was no journalism in this recent piece. If Palast knows something new about Galloway then it would be a good idea for him to tell us what it is.

[BurtWorm]

21. I'd never heard the bit about supporting the fatwa against Rushdie.

Or about Galloway being anti-choice. Those two pieces, unfortunately, Galloway didn't address.

[mrfrapp]

23. That's why...

It's facts like that which mean I don't support Galloway unreservedly. He may be left wing and an anti-war proponent, and for that reason many people here support him, but he ain't no liberal that's for sure.

on edit: none of Palast's article was new to me because living in the UK has meant I've heard it all before. If Palast's article was useful to American readers in this regard then I underestimated its merit. I do wish however, that this nonsense about misappropriation of funds is put to bed. It's been thoroughly debunked in courts of law.

Opponents of Galloway would be better off concentrating on admitted facts. Galloway's given them more than enough rope over the years for them to hang him with.

With respect to his anti-war views however, I'm completely in agreement with him.

[BurtWorm]

26. He reminds me of Nader in some ways.

:hide:

[mogster]

22. I did, and do

I also respect Galloway, though ;-)

Fun fencing by both, but little facts if one's sifting through the info in both articles.

As grumbling go, this is fun stuff, but if we're to be serious, they both could do with some 'upping' of their rethorics and general inclination to each other and the serious issues they're debating.

'swamp-things like George Galloway' and 'Crawl back under your rock, Mr Palast!' does not impress me at all as far as political lingo goes.

It is fun, but not very serious, and sounds like they just got out of a summer job at the NRO, language wise.

I like Palast best when he's digging up dirt, and Galloway when he strings up a neocon and zings a G into his chest with his words.

[0007]

38. I'll second that!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. oooh burn nt

nt

[yodermon]

9. As a fan of both of these gentlemen

..I am now highly conflicted.
That is all.

[Ladyhawk]

11. Being conflicted is a sign that you are into truth, eh?

Freepers are good at compartmentalizing and so can't see their own hypocrisy. I'm forever trying to make things make sense and sometimes they just don't. Probably there is a happy medium in there somewhere. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

12. The only thing I personally

am interested with Galloway is that he is telling the truth about the United States and Iraq. I don't care about any of his issues or anything like that.

[BurtWorm]

33. There is a happy medium.

You try not to let the personalities get in the way of the facts. It's much easier said than done.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. George Galloway isn't fit to carry Greg Palast's chamberpot

Just as he mistakenly attacked Carl Levin, Galloway's pomposity in this instance is incredible.

Yes, he's against the sanctions on Iraq and against the war, but he doesn't answer most of Palast's points. He is is anti-woman, anti-choice and a veritable caveman when it comes to the rights of religion to dominate the world.

If being against the war is the test of decency, then Bob Novak is a titan for all that's good and true.

Greg Palast is one of humanity's true heroes; Galloway is a gadfly.

[K-W]

15. I would be wary of hero worship of any kind.

Just as he mistakenly attacked Carl Levin, Galloway's pomposity in this instance is incredible.

Pomposity? How dare Galloway defend himself, the nerve.

Yes, he's against the sanctions on Iraq and against the war, but he doesn't answer most of Palast's points.

Which points would those be?

He is is anti-woman

Right...

anti-choice

While not admirable, hardly relevant.

and a veritable caveman when it comes to the rights of religion to dominate the world.

The rights of religion to dominate the world? What on earth does that mean?

If being against the war is the test of decency, then Bob Novak is a titan for all that's good and true.

If I run into anyone who thinks that being against the war is the test of decency I will let them know that.

Greg Palast is one of humanity's true heroes; Galloway is a gadfly.

We are all entitled to our opinion I suppose, but the proof is in the facts regardless of whether one places Palast, Galloway, or both on a pedestal.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Yep, point well taken about hero worship, but...

We like to presume that those with whom we agree are admirable on all counts, yet a bit of scrutiny often brings them up short.

Palast has given long and honorable service as an investigative journalist, and he's a truly decent guy. Yes, he's a bit full of himself, but in comparison to a self-proclaimed Diogenes like Galloway, he's humility itself.

Mr. Galloway doesn't address any of Palast's points except for the money trail issue. The reactionary stances on extreme religion, abortion and women's rights were completely avoided.

The way Galloway treated Levin was simply silly, and at the end of the clip with the two of them and Norm Coleman, you could see that Galloway knew that he had made a mistake; Levin was one of only two Senators up for re-election in '02 who voted against the IWR.

Do you seriously think that nobody--especially on this board--holds opposition to the war as a litmus test for decency?

As for pomposity, Palast hardly eviscerated the guy; he pointed out some very questionable stances and did so without scathing vilification. Galloway responded to only two real issues, absolutely ducked the true substance of Palast's comments, and did so with extreme vitriol. Lest we forget, the substance of Palast's article was that, yes, the guy is against the war, but that he's been evasive on the money issue and has many other vehement beliefs that might be unnerving to progressives. The biggest points Palast raised were women's issues, choice and the intrusive rights of religion. Galloway didn't address ANY of these issues, even though they were the very heart and soul of Palast's article.

The anti-choice issue is ABSOLUTELY relevant; the heart of Palast's article was to point out things we hadn't really considered about Galloway. Palast was sounding an alarm, SPECIFICALLY about this and the aforementioned points; how can you possibly think this is irrelevant?

As for the religion issue, it sounds like you haven't even read Palast's article. The first paragraph quotes Galloway as saying "If you don't respect religion, you have to suffer the consequences." That is a statement from someone who grants religion the rights of monarchy and demands fealty to it from all.

In the final analysis, the principal points Palast was bringing up were virtually all ignored.

[K-W]

34. Galloway responded to the more serious points.

And my point stands. Galloway's position on choice has nothing to do with anything. The fact that Palast was digging up anything about Galloway that might put someone off about him shows it to be a smear piece, not a serious piece of journalism.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. That's ridiculous

Palast was injecting some qualification into the mix and pointing out how the flavor of the week might not be all he's cracked up to be. This was hardly a hit piece; it was one where Palast admitted having been swept away by the moment and not having paid enough attention to other issues.

Now you're negating the stated intent of your first response to me: if one is to be wary of becoming an acolyte, then your steadfast defense of the man smacks of inconsistency.

Galloway's other positions have everything to do with everything. This was started by Palast, and his contention is that those presumed as allies aren't necessarily such. Whether anyone likes it or not, Palast defined the terms of this discourse, and since he sought to show that Galloway's firebrand independence and outspokenness is in accord with most of us when talking about the war, it's not necessarily within spitting distance of our other shared beliefs.

By what ludicrous dictate of what's "important" or not do you make such pronouncements? Palast was giving us a bit of perspective, and since he was the initiating the discussion, it's ALL relevant.

Privilege is what rankles me the most, and far too many are willing to grant a carte blanche to the outspoken, regardless of other agenda of the individual in question.

Using the phrase "smear piece" is worse than just provocative. If a public figure won't stand for his/her actions and expects some kind of aristocratic immunity, that person is anti-democratic. Imperiousness comes in many guises, and the holier-than-thou vox populi is one of the most galling and destructive to pluralism.

You deride hero worship, yet demand immunity for your champion. HE didn't set the tone of this discourse, that was done by Palast as an overview of the man in toto. The very idea of Galloway's other beliefs being off limits because he's somehow morally better is just another expression of privilege.

Galloway DID NOT respond to the more serious points. Maybe they're the points with which he's more uncomfortable, but he didn't respond to much of anything. He dealt with the money issue, but if you read Palast, that was a mere aside; the crux of Palast's revelations were ignored. Galloway fired a fusillade of derision that didn't touch on the meat of the article. I suppose the wounded are accorded the right to viciously demean those who hold them accountable, but Galloway's assassination reeks of the vitriol of sanctimony.

Here's the meat of the article: GG's not the person you think he is; he's imperious, anti-choice, pro-religion to to point of being a reactionary and reckless in his pursuit of his various ends. All Galloway did was scream about the money and slag Palast as a journalist.

Go ahead and stand by your edict; it's just another instance of an individual holding him/herself above the norms proscribed for inferiors. You condemn hero worship while demanding immunity for your champion and yourself; it's tiresome.

[yella_dawg]

17. Sorry, I'm with Palast on this one

The man has a strong reputation for checking his facts and speaking truth when he finds it.

Galloway, on the other hand, is a politician. I refrain from quoting the obvious generalizations about politicians.

What the hell is Galloway doing smoozing around the lecture circuit in the US anyway??

[K-W]

19. Who needs facts when generalizations will do. EOM

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. Don't forget Palast's famous Hillary Clinton smears

talk about innuendo

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=307

[KittyWampus]

28. Greg Palast Hates Everybody. Nobody Is Pure Enough For Him... No Wonder

he's so popular with so many DU'ers.

He voted for Nader in 2000 and then attacks Nader for not delivering the "anti-corporate movement" Palast stupidly believed would spring up after Nader's candidacy like a mushroom after a rainstorm. :eyes:


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=349

[Proud2BAmurkin]

30. Didn't know he voted for NADER

ugh

[BurtWorm]

32. I've always held that Nader vote against Palast

but now that I've seen it explained, I forgive him. He woke up quick, at least, unlike some Nader voters who still haven't woken up.

[KittyWampus]

27. Better Query: Why Isn't Palast Investigating ... Chertoff Or Brown?

why did it take a catastrophe to uncover their incompetence and the stinking cronyism?

Seems like maybe Palast could do some actual investigating the THUGS rather than parroting worn out accusations against an anti-war voice.

Hey Greg, there's plenty of corruption still left to uncover out there... how about FINDING IT.

[defiant1]

39. Cuz the last time he tried....

which was the 2004 election, he was virtually shut out of the Corporate Media in this country. All of the wonderful reporting he was doing was ignored here, while the Brits had no problem publishing it.

But the point of the article, which you people seemed to have missed, is that Palast is saying that there are some questionable activities that Galloway still has yet to account for (the finacial records of the Mariam Appeal, the missing million), neither of which Galloway mentioned in his retort.

The commission investigated Galloway because of reports that he was using the fund's money to pay for first class travel, lavish hotels, champagne and cavier during his visits to the middle east. Galloway said that he used some of the money to pay for his expenses while traveling. (although one would wonder why he would use the campaign's money for that purpose, since the funds weren't donated so he could fly first class)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3847287.stm

While the Charity Commission clears Galloway of misusing the funds, it also states that they were unable to aquire any of the Mariam Appeals books or finacial records, and had to rely on bank statements.

From a statement issued by the Charity Commission in response to Galloway's testimony before the US Senate.

"While we were able to review income and expenditure from the bank statements of the Appeal, which we had to obtain using our legal powers direct from banks, we were not able to verify all aspects of expenditure because of the lack of proper documentation. However, we found no evidence that the funds of the Appeal were misapplied (other than the payment of some unauthorised benefits to trustees which were made in good faith)."

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=156759&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True

The Commission found no evidence because all they were looking at were bank statements. The books left the country, and haven't been heard from since.

I'm not judging Galloway's innocence or guilt one way or the other.

But I'm not going to jump on his bandwagon just because he hates Bush.

[defiant1]

35. Not enough info to make informed decision....

[SeveneightyWhoa]

42. I'll take Palast over Galloway any day.

Palast is totally correct.. and almost heroic for knocking an unfortunate "hero" of the left down a notch.

[personman]

49. Totally correct?

What is he correct about? Most of what Palast said was right out of right-wing-nut-Hitchens' smear rag he was handing out. Galloway himself said he's already made about 4 millions dollars suing these liars.

If you really think you're going to convince DUers by pushing a bunch of right-wing talking points your welcome to try, but I wouldn't count on being taken very seriously.

Did you know you can actually find scans of the "evidence" implicating Galloway on the net? A more obvious forgery I've never seen.

Why are you believing this crap that was disproved months ago?

What's YOUR agenda?

-personman

[SeveneightyWhoa]

50. LOL!

So me and Greg Palast are both right-wingers now?

Because we don't think Galloway is a "hero", like you seem to?

Wow, if Galloway made 4 million suing people, it means he MUST be perfection personified!

[reorg]

46. Palast should stick to his field of expertise

He is an amazingly resourceful guy. Just listen to him when he goes on about Kashoggi's activities and ventures, when he cites contacts in European intelligence agencies with information on al Qaeda, or in the World Bank, who tell him every little detail about what the World Bank does in Latin America.

It is mostly about "digging out corporate dirt" when he tells us stories that set our ears on fire, in shame, because maybe we didn't do enough to stand up against all those evil liars and crooks around us. OK, he mostly preaches to the choir, I guess. But it makes us feel stronger, knowing that someone out there is doing something.

At least that's the way I feel when I am reading his stuff. So, to date, I never noticed at all that in his cruises from one hot spot to another, one area is, well ... conspicuously? Hardly. Anyway, it is missing. Okay, he doesn't seem to report much on Asian affairs, too, and also not much about Europe, I guess. But he must know a lot about the Middle East, right? Doesn't he tell us all kinds of stories about the Arabs? And yet, I can find nothing from him about, hm, maybe I really shouldn't mention it here. It is always better to talk one's way around this, probably. It may be, uh, too hot. Unduly, uh, dammit, I'm not into flame wars and stuff and rather shut my mouth now.


SO WHAT THE FUCK IS HE DOING RIGHT NOW?


"... someone asked George Galloway if television should broadcast an adaptation of Rushdie's novel, "Satanic Verses." According to Rushdie, Galloway replied, "If you don't respect religion, you have to suffer the consequences." Holy Jesus! This was, unmistakably, an endorsement of the death-sentence fatwa issued against Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini."

Hm, Mr. Palast cites Rushdie, so I guess the story is true. Yet doesn't the answer appear to be Solomonic? If you provoke religious radicals (which was Rushdie's intent), they might react - is that a false proposition? Call it a cop-out. Galloway may be thinking it's unwise right now to broadcast the "Satanic Verses", who knows. But what he said is definitely not, neither "unmistakably" nor even a hint of an "endorsement" of a death sentence.


The following is from an article at Palast's website, apparently written by his research assistant (I'm sure Palast has nothing at all to do with it):

"... the endorsement of the cold-blooded murder of a country’s Olympic team, 11 innocent civilians, is as disgusting to my ears as hearing somebody endorse and condone the brutal massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp in Shatila"

which is in reference to this part of Galloway's speech:

"You see it was very important, Mr. Hitchens’ support for the Palestinian people and it was not easy in 1980, only a few years before the Palestinian resistance had seized the Israeli Olympic Games team in Munich and had committed what most people in the world described as an act of mass terrorism."

Galloway in no way here endorses anything the Palestinians did (except that he calls the hostage takers "Palestinian resistance" instead of using an apolitical, dismissive label such as "terrorists"). Leaving this aside, the writer may be forgiven for her misrepresentation of fact, she says she was only 6 years old at the time and is perhaps not that skilled in researching these issues. And Mr. Palast, I'm sure, has probably nothing at all to do with it. So, just to clear up what she falsely, maybe erroneously claims to be "cold-blooded murder ... as disgusting ... as ... the brutal massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp in Shatila":

To this day it is not known how many of the Israeli hostages were shot by the German police, as a result of a horrendously bungled police operation. The Palestinians were tricked into believing that their demands were being met and when they arrived with the hostages at the Landshut airport, badly trained police sharpshooters opened fire. It is quite possible that not a single one of the hostages has been killed by the hostage takers, let alone "in cold blood". Proof was hard to come by, though, since the victims were burned beyond recognition in the ensuing fire, also caused by the police.

More, if not exhausting detail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre