The readers' editor on ... charges of an anti-Israel hoax in south Lebanon

[Taxloss]

On Tuesday July 25 the Guardian carried a report from south Lebanon headed: Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission. It appeared on page 6, the last of three pages devoted to the Middle East crisis that day. The report was filed from the southern Lebanon city of Tyre by one of the paper's most experienced foreign correspondents, a former Jerusalem correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg.

She reported: "Even in a war which has turned the roads of south Lebanon into killing zones, Israel's rocket strike on two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances on Sunday night set a deadly new milestone."

Her report was compiled from information provided on the morning after the incident by the Red Cross in Tyre and from interviews with ambulance workers and others in hospital who said they had been injured in the attack. The ambulances were seen by the Guardian's staff photographer, Sean Smith, on July 25 (the day the Guardian report of the incident was actually published). He was able to see them before they were removed from the site where the attack was said to have taken place. Smith, who now has considerable experience in war zones, remains in no doubt that the ambulances had been subjected to a recent attack consistent with what had been reported.

Much the same story was carried by major news outlets around the world. But was it true? A California-based website poses the question: "Could it be that the entire incident is a fabrication? All signs point to 'Yes'." You can read the entire argument leading to that conclusion at www.zombietime.com. This has been adopted by the pro-Israeli lobby HonestReporting which asks: "Why has the mainstream media not reported this hoax and admitted its mistake?" It then calls upon its subscribers to ask the same question of the following media outlets - a list which gives some idea of the extent of the coverage: Associated Press, ITN, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, the Age in Australia, NBC News, the New York Times and the Guardian.

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,,1869372,00.html

---------

I hope this doesn't break any rules by being a couple of days out of date - it was tucked away in the paper and I read i in the print edition on Monday. It only occurred to me that it might have escaped the attention of you online readers today. Interesting look at the subjective minefield that is war reporting.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Given that use of the clusterbombs

and white phosphorous shells were in themselves a far greater war crime is the ambulance incident significant ?

Are the cluster bombs a fabrication too ?

[Tom Joad]

2. Says much about what i have to put up with here in california...

Like living in the backwoods of Mississippi and confronting the kkk.

It's even worse for Jewish folks here (and much, much, worse for Arab-Americans) who support peace and justice in the Middle East. Defenders of the terror group Jewish Defense League write for the San Francisco Chronicle online website, we have one fellow (another JDL supporter) who impersonates a congressional staffer and cancels a conference call to a congressional office...

The writers (if there is more than one) at zombietime are liars and haters, its their job. I hope we understand that clearly, and treat them as such. No one but the most idiotic would think otherwise.

[bemildred]

4. Here is a nugget from today:

Jewish Group Says Selection of Muslim for Award Made Illegally

The Zionist Organization of America asked for an investigation Tuesday into allegations that the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission violated state open meeting laws when it selected a local Muslim leader for its annual humanitarian award.

Stephen Saltzman, executive director of the Zionist organization's Southern California office, said the commission failed to post in advance proper details of two July meetings at which the issue was discussed, as required by the state open meeting law known as the Brown Act. As a result, he argued, the decision to grant the award to Maher Hathout, chairman of the Islamic Center of Southern California, was "null and void."

The organization asked for the investigation in a letter Tuesday to Board of Supervisors Chairman Mike Antonovich.

"The Brown Act gave the public the right to know and to participate in the decision-making process," Saltzman said. "We intend to pursue this until we're satisfied."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hathout13sep13,1,650828.story?coll=la-headlines-california

[pelsar]

7. except those who understand explosives....

so pehaps you could explain how a missle (same kind known to tear apart cars in gaza leaving them as flaming wrecks) ...simply punched a hole in the top of the ambulance roof and then....what did it do after that?

nows your chance to prove to some of us how the zombietime people are liars here.....this should be interesting (your answer.....)

[Tom Joad]

9. Of course i have no expertise in explosives, never been part of

organized killing (never was a military man), or mining, or things of that nature where such knowledge is necessary.
I leave that to others.
But i know overall this website is involved in lies and deception. It is extremely reactionary. It hates John Kerry as much as anyone opposes Israel's organized terror.

From the article above:


Two Australian newspapers, in fact, revisited the story after the country's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, accused some of the world's "most prestigious media" of falling for a hoax. One of them, the Australian, carried its rebuttal under the heading: "Downer's unfounded faith in the internet", and it accused him of being hoaxed by what it called "a callous blog" (zombietime is a website not a blog). The heading on the Age story speaks for itself: "Ambulance attack evidence stands the test."

What the zombietime website, which takes issue with both of these Australian rebuttals, does show is a fairly large number of inconsistencies and anomalies in the reporting and pictorial coverage of the event across the media: whether these are larger in number than might normally be expected to occur in reporting from a war zone is a matter for conjecture. A Guardian picture archivist with a special interest in images from areas of conflict, who carried out extensive research for me, concluded that there was cause for doubt about the nature of the munitions involved and the manner of their delivery, but not in the reality of the attack. Suzanne Goldenberg told me: "I remain confident that the story was true." She points out that she and Sean Smith reported the story first hand and independently and did not rely on what purported to be amateur video footage of the incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,,1869372,00.html

This is really just one small incident, we already have the admission that the IDF acted insanely and monstrously in its dropping of cluster bombs.

[msmcghee]

10. Someone's opinion that the debunking was itself a hoax,

. . is not evidence. When no evidence is presented along with such assertions it becomes obvious that there is no evidence - and that their opinions to the contrary were just expressions of what they would like to be true.

As another poster said - here's your chance to prove that zombietime are liars - as you have asserted.

As I've said before BS talks - money walks.

[pelsar]

11. You dont have to be an expert...

just simple comparisons.....cars in gaza hit by missles are blown up.....the ambulance had a little hole....what you quoted above says absolutly nothing about how a missle didnt blow the car up in to little pieces.....

thats your answer?...quoting an article that explains nothing....sheesh you can at least try.....


and the zombie website?....claiming that a site cannot have real information because "you dont like their attitude sounds like the "website racisim" to me

...just because an explanation comes from a site you dont like hardly makes the information not true......or perhaps you can expain that as well?

your not doing very well inexplaining...now stick to the subject and dont go running off on a tangent

[Tom Joad]

12. Website racism? No, just considering the source.

[Tom Joad]

13. DU does not consider zombietime to be a worthy source...

when this issue was posted before, using zombie as a source, it was locked because of that.

If you believe the stuff coming out of there... nevermind.

well.. anyway, wanna buy three major world-class bridges? Golden Gate, Bay Bridge, and the Carniquez thrown in free. pm me for special rates.

Story of this sale is in here:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

[msmcghee]

15. You may be successful getting this one locked too.

But, in the meantime, from all the words of outrage about this debunking that you have posted so far - all your accusations that they have no merit - not one of those words points to any actual evidence that the zombietime story is wrong.

This, despite the huge desire on the far left to discredit an article that vividly shows the deception and mendacity of the anti-Israel cause and how it is being waged. You'd think you could have come up with something by now. I mean, this could be a very serious war crime by Israel if it was true.

Can't you provide even one piece of evidence in support of your assertion? How pathetic.

[Tom Joad]

16. I think the article Guardian is reliable, and he does a better job

of debunking the zombie thing better than i can.

[msmcghee]

18. Yes, he does a better job than you. And . .

. . he does't do any job at all. All he says is that he believes the reporters' original versions of the stories. He doesn't address even one of zombietime's very reasonable analyses and supported conclusions.

He offers no reasons why any one of zombietime's conclusions are wrong - much less questionable. All he says is that he stands by the original story - which is really just interviews of the Red Cross driver who had bandages on his face one day for the western press, covering supposedly horrible injuries, bandages that were gone six days later revealing a clean shaven face with no stiches or even scars.

I'm sure the Guardian appreciates your confidence.

[Scurrilous]

24. Zombie reasonable?

LOL

Go over to littlegreenfootballs (Constitutionally protected hate speech. ~ L.A. Magazine) and punch Zombie's name into the search function and peruse some of this racist twit's comments (if they haven't been scrubbed yet). He ain't reasonable. Hate never is.

[msmcghee]

26. Yet you still can offer no evidence . .

. . as to why zombie's analysis of this hoax is unreasonable. It would seem that from the hundreds of strident claims in this forum that Israel are inhuman warmogers who commit outrageous war-crimes against innocent civilians with impunity - here's one that was hailed as the final proof. It was pressure from this claim that contributed to the pressure on Israel to call off the assault on the Hizb'allah.

And yet, now that the claims have been analyzed, you can't offer a shred of evidence from anywhere on the internet that this most outrageous claim is anything but a hoax.

[Scurrilous]

27. To each his own.

I'll believe the witnesses on the scene in Lebanon and the Red Cross.

You can believe the opinion...err...'analysis' of an anonymous poster from a right-wing hate site.

:thumbsup:

[msmcghee]

28. I prefer to believe the evidence - not any "side". n/t

[pelsar]

30. whats so difficult here....

so i understand that you believe a missle fired from a helicopter that destroys cars in gaza....will only punch a hole in an ambulance roof...since the witnesses mentioned a fire...it must have exploded and destroyed....nothing.

(personally when i read it the first time...... after cleaning up the coffee i spit out, i found the attempt so amaturish i couldnt believe anybody would believe it....i underestimated the power of the "believers"..

but anyway ...its a simply yes and no question:.....you believe the witnesses that said the missle exploded, as well as the pictures that show an intact ambulance, with its hole in the roof?

simple question....does it get a simple answer?

[pelsar]

19. what was written in the article?

all i found was this:

A Guardian picture archivist with a special interest in images from areas of conflict, who carried out extensive research for me, concluded that there was cause for doubt about the nature of the munitions involved and the manner of their delivery, but not in the reality of the attack.

so they're not sure if munitions were involved (no explosion)....they not sure how a "projecticle" if any got there.....but the ambulance was attacked ?...heh heh.....

by what?...

[pelsar]

14. i read al jazeer...

as well as marixist sites even ISM .....(even zmag when i want a laugh)...point is i may not agree with the viewpoints, but it doesnt mean their information is incorrect.

your inability to even consider othe sources is quite telling.....if you lack knowldege about munitions and how they affect cars....go to some miiitary sites, they are far more relevant information than from the guardian on that subject.

granted, it does require an 'open mind"...and a willingness to talk to people with whom you will disgree with politically, but that should not hinder someone from learning......should it?

I dont need the DU to close out various sources....now about learning about munitions....would you like to? or do you still believe that a missle only punches holes in thin skinned vehicles? and then "dissapears"

you really should try to answer directly.....its not hard.

[oblivious]

31. Obviously it did not explode. It happens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/masser/221217038/


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5270118.stm

[msmcghee]

32. Then where is it? Where is the unexploded missile?

Why were no pictures taken of it - while extensive photos of the hole through the roof through which it (supposedly) passed are shown. Also, what kind of rocket would leave neat flanges around the hole - bent outward when it pssed from outside to inside? And why would they look just like they were made with a metal cutting tool and have screw holes in them - like holes to hold the air vent in place that appears on all other ambulances of that type - in that exact same place - at the very geometric center in the red cross?

What a strange set of unexplained coincidences. And what a shot. It looks like the helicopter pilot was able to hit the exact center within a half inch of error - and this was from sevaral thousand feet - remember the witnesses never said they heard the helicopter. Oh yeah, that's before they said it was jet.

Nice try. Well, actually I can't even give you a nice try. It was rather a pathetic try on the same level of the incompetent Lebanese / Hizb'allah Red Cross crew who tried to set it up.

You'd think they'd at least try catch a couple of episodes of CSI before they planned it.

[oblivious]

33. Wait a minute. In post 7 you asked why the vehicle wasn't a flaming wreck

I presented an obvious possibility. Now you're whining about something else.

As to where the unexploded bomb is, how should I know. Perhas it was removed for safety reasons. Perhaps as you say there was no bomb. I have no idea. I'm just saying some bombs are obviously duds.

[pelsar]

50. i understand that

the witnesses claim a huge fireball and explosion.....were they lying?

[breakaleg]

3. This was posted already.

And I'm not sure that it was proven false.

[pelsar]

6. it was obvious......

for anyone who has seen what a missle does to a car......after all those pictures of cars totally destroyed in gaza from missles fired by helicopters....all of a sudden all they do is "punch holes" in roofs?

really it was one of the more pathetic attempts at demonizing israel....and still people bought it, it certainly does point to an interesting slant.

[breakaleg]

23. I hardly think one need work very hard to demonize Israel...

they do that nicely all on their own.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. if true, then why compound it with lies and deceit?

[msmcghee]

5. Thanks for posting this. I haven't seen it before.

I note that so far, none of those refuting the zombietime story in this thread have presented any actual evidence to refute it.

When I first heard the news reports on this I wondered how a missile fired from a helicopter, typically capable of destroying lightly armored tanks and atomizing the occupants, could kill none of the nine persons supposedly in or next to the thin sheet-metal-clad ambulances at the time - while surgically severing the leg of a patient inside the ambulance. It was puzzling but I thought the details would eventually emerge.

So far, this zombietime analysis is only the article that attempts to provide those details:

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

If those dismissing this thorough analysis are so certain that it is wrong - I invite them to show the results of the detailed UN or Red Cross investigation of these "serious war crimes" that support their opposite view. They've had plenty of time plus direct access to the witnesses and the ambulances involved, not just news photos and an inquiring mind.

Where is that evidence? Where is one piece of it? Or, will you just continue to post unrelated quips about how JDL are terrorists and zombietime are haters?

[Spinoza]

8. I think the answer to your last question is:

Yes.

[Tom Joad]

17. Why aren't you reponding directly to the Guardian article, and only

asking me to provide evidence of what really happened.

What do you think of what the Guardian article said?

[msmcghee]

20. See # 18 above.

You read the article. Why can't you quote any evidence from it refuting the zombietime story. It's because there is none in there. Only opinions of an editor covering his ass.

At some point you'd think that someone could simply admit that they were wrong - when they so obviously are.

[Englander]

21. I think we know the answer to that one.

I think zombietime, like HonestReporting, do provide a service of some sort - if anyone is willing
to give them credibility, or take them seriously, even, it usually follows that the arguments such
folk use, or even the conceptual grasp of what is considered reality by such folks, is likely to be
somewhat lacking. That's how I view them, anyways.

[pelsar]

22. so then you can try....

how does a missle NOT blow up an ambulance....but only "punch a hole in the roof"....so far were kinda short on direct answers here.....

[newyorican]

29. Amazing...

how many different people are willing to blow themselves up just to make Israel look bad.

Also Amazing: I continuously hear pathetic mewling about believing anything, regardless the source or how crazy, that makes Israel look bad.

*Holds mirror up*

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. sorry, but Israel does have a long record of attacking emergency medical

services. EVERY SINGLE credible and independent human rights organization that monitors these matters WITHOUT EXCEPTION reports the same exact thing. Can these all be hoaxes???

International Committee of the Red Cross

link: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/lebanon-news-240706?opendocument

"Red Cross reports, two of its ambulances were struck by munitions, although both vehicles were clearly marked by the red cross emblem and flashing lights that were visible at a great distance. The incident happened while first-aid workers were transferring wounded patients from one ambulance to another. As a result, nine people including six Red Cross volunteers were wounded. "The ICRC is gravely concerned about the safety of medical staff ", said Balthasar Staehelin, the organization's delegate-general for the Middle East and North Africa. "We have raised this issue with the Israeli authorities and urged them to take the measures needed to avoid such incidents in the future."

Among other incidents of this type, on 19 July the Society's first-aid station in Insarieh was damaged, as were two ambulances. A first-aid worker suffered minor injuries. On 18 July, an ambulance received a direct hit while on a first-aid and evacuation mission."

-- Human Rights Watch

link: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/13/isrlpa14185.htm

"Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: Don’t Fire on Gaza Medics
Six Attacks on Palestinian Ambulances, Paramedics
(New York, September 13, 2006) – Israeli security forces launched attacks that harmed Palestinian medical emergency personnel and damaged ambulances on at least six different occasions in the Gaza Strip between May 30 and July 20, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ensure that its troops scrupulously respect the protected status of medical emergency personnel and facilities at all times as it conducts military operations in the Gaza Strip."

That was just two. Check other reports. It's easy to confirm:



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp


Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

[pelsar]

49. so did the massacre at jenin...

that never happened....

"No Massacre in Jenin" - HRW "There is simply no evidence of a massacre,"
______________________________

but the media said:
* "We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," said a leading columnist for the Evening Standard, London's main evening newspaper, on April 15.

"Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," reported Janine di Giovanni, the London Times's correspondent in Jenin, on April 16.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. but HRW did report very serious war crimes at Jenin which included

deliberate attacks on civilians, use of human shields, attacks against medical personnel and disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force without military necessity - link:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/

[pelsar]

80. that was not your question ....now was it?

you asked:
EVERY SINGLE credible and independent human rights organization that monitors these matters WITHOUT EXCEPTION reports the same exact thing. Can these all be hoaxes???

and i then showed you how the "jenin massacre" reported by so many was exactly that: a Hoax.

thats the subject matter: you asked, i answered.....no need to changed the subject.
________

the ambulance too was a hoax:

I'll summarize the two versions:

believe the witnesses that claim an explosion and fireball......and the almost non damaged ambulance (compare that to the wrecks that the missles do in Gaza. (anybody care to explain in simple english the difference___________)

or

Believe the witnesses are lying and that the missle traveling over (Mach 1.3 (442.37700 m/s) punches a hole in the roof and then does no more damage and "disappears" (all that kinetic energy suddenly gone?.....)...anybody got any good explanations for this option?____________

or the obvious:
it never happened, and the media for reasons i never will understand jumped on the prospect that israel is attacking ambulances...and so many people couldnt even look at the obvious and wonder what they're writing about. But as i learn here, with all those who are claiming that israel did attack, so far none have come up to explain the non exploading ambulance or if the witnesses are lying.....they just want to believe it...like the religous right......facts never get in the way of a belief.

[Englander]

85. In other words, a massacre.

'Monday, 4 November, 2002, 05:48 GMT

Amnesty says Jenin operation 'war crime'

The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, has accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes during its incursions into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus earlier this year.

In a new report, the London-based organisation says that some of the actions carried out by Israeli forces during their military operations between April and June breached the Fourth Geneva Convention.

>snip

Amnesty says the army killed civilians, tortured prisoners, destroyed houses and prevented the arrival of humanitarian aid in the Palestinian towns.

While early Palestinian claims that hundreds of people were massacred have now been discounted, Amnesty believes that over 50 Palestinians were killed in the fighting in Jenin, and at least another 80 in Nablus, many of them civilians.

Women and children were among the dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2396071.stm

_______________


Inside the camp of the dead
from janine di giovanni in jenin refugee camp

April 16, 2002

Times Online

BASHIR died in agony. The hands of the 23-year-old Palestinian are clenched into tight fists, his body charred.

He lies buried under rubble and cement, his head twisted towards the door as if crying out for help. His tomb is a wasted house that crashed around him after the Israelis tried to bulldoze it to make a road.

Next door, up a blackened stairway and across shards of glass, is the body of Ashran Abu Hadel, also 23. Someone tried to pull him out of the rubble but gave up. His arm lies straight out, as though he tried to push himself away from the cement as he lay dying.

Elsewhere in the Jenin refugee camp I saw bodies of men who were clearly fighters, replete with ammunition belts and other paramilitary trappings. Bashir and Ashran had nothing.

The refugees I had interviewed in recent days while trying to enter the camp were not lying. If anything, they underestimated the the carnage and the horror. Rarely, in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life.

http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews2/insidethecamp041602.html

__________________


Israel and the Occupied Territories
Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus

>snip

Unlawful killings

According to hospital lists reviewed by Amnesty International there were 54 Palestinian deaths between 3 and 17 April 2002 in both Jenin refugee camp and Jenin city as a result of the incursion and subsequent fighting. This figure includes seven women, four children and six men over the age of 55. Six had been crushed by houses. The body of one person known to have died by being crushed in his house has not been recovered.

The records of Palestinians killed in the incursion and admitted to Jenin City Hospital reflect the impact of the IDF blockade round the hospital between 5 and 15 April. Five bodies were brought to the hospital, which is just at the edge of the refugee camp, on 3 April, the first day of the IDF incursion into the camp. One body was brought in on 4 April. After that the hospital and the camp were under tight siege and although the hospital stands at the entrance to the camp, not a single corpse was brought into the hospital from 5 until 15 April, the day after a petition filed by two human rights organizations, Adalah and LAW, before the Israeli High Court resulted in the State agreeing to allow the ICRC access to the refugee camp. Most bodies of those fighters or those not involved in fighting killed between 5 and 15 April remained where they lay; a few were taken from streets to homes, a few were buried by their families in yards or back gardens, and four were taken to the al-Razi Hospital. Amnesty International delegates who entered the refugee camp on the departure of the IDF on 17 April found ruins smelling of death, with parts of human bodies sticking out of the rubble of destroyed houses.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE151432002

_________________-


'The lunar landscape that was the Jenin refugee camp

Suzanne Goldenberg in Jenin
Tuesday April 16, 2002
The Guardian

A fortnight ago, before Israeli forces invaded, this was a crowded, bustling place. The narrow alleys between the cinderblock homes - spanning barely the width of outstretched arms - were packed with children.

Yesterday, the Hart al-Hawashin neighbourhood, the heart of the Jenin refugee camp, was a silent wasteland, permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite. The evidence of lives interrupted was everywhere. Plates of food sat in refrigerators in houses sheared in half by Israeli bulldozers. Pages from children's exercise books fluttered in the breeze.

In a ruined house, the charred corpse of a gunman wearing the green bandana of Hamas lay where it fell, beside his ammunition belt. Electric cables snaked through the ruins.

Alleys leading off the square deepened the image of wanton destruction: entire sides of buildings gouged out, stripped out to the kitchen tiles like discarded dolls' houses. The scale is almost beyond imagination: a vast expanse of rubble and mangled iron rods, surrounded by the gaping carcasses of shattered homes.

Yesterday the first definitive accounts of the battle of Jenin began to emerge as journalists broke through the Israeli cordon and gained access to the heart of the refugee camp. Palestinians describe a systematic campaign of destruction, with the Israeli army ploughing through occupied homes to broaden the alleys of the camp and make them accessible to tanks and vehicles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,685133,00.html

[The Magistrate]

86. Empurpled Prose, Sir, Does Not A Massacre Make

The term, after all, has a meaning, that is generally accepted as the killing of most, if not all, of the soldiers in a battle or people in a locale. When people hear the word employed, their initial reaction is a feeling that just about everyone has been killed. That is why propagandists love to employ the word, and do so with deliberate falseness, applying it to incidents where the facts fall far short of the real meaning of the term.

Jenin was one of the mildest instances in the history of pitched battle in a built-up and populated urban area. No one familiar with military history would disagree with that statement. Even H.R.W. acknowledges the majority of the Arab Palestinians killed in it were armed fighters, and in the detailed descriptions of the non-combatant deaths, it is quite clear that many were the result of genuine mistake on the part of the soldiers in a combat environment. All reports of the matter by human rights groups and the U.N. state unequivocally that the Arab Palestinian fighters committed grave violations of law in taking up fighting positions that endangered their own non-combatants: they did so deliberately for cover and propaganda advantage. The best that can be said is that both sides in the fighting violated the regulations to some degree. But in the over-all view, the casualties were extraordinarily mild, totaling no more than about eighty on both sides, and without a great degree of restraint on the part of the Israeli forces, this could not have been the case.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Speaking of empurpled prose and propaganda...

But in the over-all view, the casualties were extraordinarily mild, totaling no more than about eighty on both sides, and without a great degree of restraint on the part of the Israeli forces, this could not have been the case.

I personally wouldn't call Jenin a massacre, but a war crime (despite yr protestations to the contrary, human rights groups do believe that Israel committed grave violations in law, and as they're much clearly less partisan than yrself and much more qualified in the matter, they hold a lot more weight). But the number of casualties has nothing at all to do with whether something is a massacre or not. And yr meaning of massacre - 'Most if not all'?? Okay, so the Port Arthur massacre really wasn't a massacre according to yr use of the term....

[The Magistrate]

96. That Fellow, Ma'am

Seems to have done a pretty good job of getting most of the people in his vicinity. As he was a lone individual, it would not be too much to stretch the definition a hair and include him, if that would seem of any value to you in the discussion.

It is indeed the proportion of casualties to survivors, and the reaching of a certain basic mass, that makes the definition of a massacre.

If you care to look into the history of fighting in populated urban areas, you will find ample material demonstrating that my characterization of the Jenin fighting is quite apt. One of the unfortunate tendencies among people on the left is to refrain from informing themselves much on military matters, and it is difficult to press sensible argument, or even place matters in context, without some good background of knowledge on a subject. You will find my comments on automobile repair, maintainance, and quality to be few and far between, and that is owing to my knowing myself to be utterly ignorant of the subject.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. That fellow didn't do anything of the sort...

People in the general vicinity hid where they could and there were a lot of Port Arthur surivors, one of my relatives being among them. If you care to look into the massacre with a bit more than a fleeting glance, then take a look at a a more massacres from the past, you'll find yr definition isn't one that fits, and proportion of casualties to survivors has nothing to do with it...

Yr characterisation of the Jenin fighting is that of a partisan who's opinion doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight as that of human rights groups. I'm sorry, but that's common-sense and a reality....

[Violet_Crumble]

111. The Sharpeville 'massacre' and other non-massacres...

It is indeed the proportion of casualties to survivors, and the reaching of a certain basic mass, that makes the definition of a massacre.

In a protest organized by the PAC on March 21, a group of between 5,000 and 7,000 people converged on the local police station, offering themselves up for arrest for not carrying their pass books.

Sixty-seven people were killed, and over 180 injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre

While there seems to be no definitive numbers for who attended the protest at the Santa Cruz cemetary in Dili, what's beyond doubt is there were many more survivors than casualties. Interesting to note that the Indonesian government refers to it as the Dili Incident rather than the Dili Massacre.

http://www.uc.pt/timor/stc1.htm

Columbine is the same. Many many more survivors than casualties. And the list goes on and on...

The word massacre is one that is subjective and there is no line in the sand where everyone agrees on. My own personal definition is that it's the mass shooting of a number of people in the same incident....

[The Magistrate]

128. Several Small Points, Ma'am

Since you did seem of a mind to pursue this....

The commonalities in the incidents you mention are that there was no effective resistance on the part of the persons assailed by gunmen, and that the incidents took place in an otherwise peaceful condition, being the actions of criminal mad-men, or of police confronting a non-violent protest. Neither of these apply to the combat at Jenin. That was an incident in a bout of open war-fare that had been going on about a year and a half previous to it, and continued some while after it. Though there was certainly a disparity of numbers and weaponry between the combatant bodies, the butcher's bill was approximately equal for both sides, with roughly twenty-five Israeli soldiers killed, in exchange for about thirty Arab Palestinian militants killed, with a bit over two dozen non-combatants caught in the cross-fire of the contending militaries fighting it out in their neighborhood.

Nor does your further condition of a mass shooting of people in the same incident apply to the events at Jenin. Jenin was fight continuing over several days, in which most of the casualties were inflicted by ones and twoes, at widely seperated times, and in different locations: the nearest thing to a "mass killing" there was the successful ambush of an Israeli detatchment by the Arab Palestinian militantsm that accounted in one blow for about half the Israeli casualties.

Why you should be at such great pains to call me "a partisan" and therefore to be disregarded, quite escapes me. All disputants here are partisans, yourself included, and if that is a reason to dismiss comments, perhaps we should simply pack it in and find other hobbies. In this instance, remember, the Human Rights Watch organotion specifically declared there was no evidence of "massacre" at Jenin, and so my comments on this matter, at least, are quite in accord with those you claim should be viewed as authoritative and neutral.

The fact remains that people use the word "massacre" mostly because they like the sound of it, and because it evokes an emotional respons of dis-favor in a person hearing it. We are all agreed a massacre is a bad thing, whatever it may actually be, and so killing by an opponent or enemy becomes a massacre, because what an opponent or enemy does is a bad thing, since it is an enemy or opponent who has done it. In our own history of conquering the west of our country, the phenomenon is clearly displayed in contemporary accounts: fights the Indians won were massacres, always; fights the Indians lost were always battles, and this no matter how one-sided or widely lethal any of them might actually have been. Thus, the use of the word is simply an exercise in propagandizing, not in accurate description: that this is so in connection with Jenin is amply demonstrated.

[pelsar]

118. also in the HRW...

Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp.

actually i just realized this was meant for a different reply....just ignore it...

[Violet_Crumble]

35. This 'hoax' got a lot of coverage over here...

...due to Alexander Downer (complete and utter imbecile and John Howard's Foreign Minister), who after *snicker* 'careful examination' of zombietimes.com declared it to be a hoax. Rather than just post links to the rebuttals, I'll take two of the comments made by those who seem to think that the amatuerish website of some anonymous RW type with a very clear bias and agenda is far more credible than eyewitnesses, victims, and the International Red Cross.

The ambulance has a hole in the roof that's not consistent with a rocket attack

While Mr. Zombie only shows a picture of one ambulance, it's of the second one and not of the first one that had more severe damage. You'd think that someone genuinelly interested in doing a fair and thorough analysis would pay at least some attention to the first and most damaged ambulance, wouldn't you?

As well as that, the rockets came from drones. From what I've read, they're smaller weapons, not the larger ones that are fired from war-planes. One of the victims told The Age reporter who interviewed him: 'It was a drone because if it was a warplane we wouldn't be alive."

The ambulance driver was faking his wounds: 'the Red Cross driver who had bandages on his face one day for the western press, covering supposedly horrible injuries, bandages that were gone six days later revealing a clean shaven face with no stiches or even scars."

This bit is addressed specifically to the poster who made that ridiculous comment. I guess you must be having a real struggle trying to explain away the leg lost by one victim. Maybe you could try arguing that it magically reappeared a few days later? Or maybe do what that one-man with an agenda you like and no other skills but having an internet connection did and make the accusation (of course none of the accusations made on that site and in this thread are backed up by evidence_ that he lost his leg somewhere else and just play-acted losing it in this attack. Both are equally ridiculous accusations, but to someone on a partisan mission, that's not a problem...

Someone asked a very good question here that I notice none of those folk answered who have no interest other than repeating incessantly that zombietimes is a credible source that's done a thorough analysis and provided *evidence*. So I'll ask the question again in the hope that someone may find enough time to answer it. If this were a hoax (and in this case all the evidence points to it not being one), what would that prove? That the bombing of the UN post was a hoax? That all those children killed in Qana were just pretending to be dead to make Israel look bad and that after the media went away they got up and continued their lives? That Israel hasn't committed war crimes in Lebanon because they're all hoaxes?

After reading this thread, it's very easy to see that there's two posters in this thread who have chosen to believe some anonymous internet guy not because of any credibility or convincing reasoning, but because his 'reworking' of events to come to a conclusion that he wants is also what they want, and they won't be moved an inch from that conclusion, no matter how irrational and bizarre that 'reworking' of events is. In that regard Mr Zombie isn't very different than the conspiracy theorists who also run their one-man websites. With conspiracy theorists they look at an event and ask who'll benefit from it and then do a swift jump to the conclusion that those who benefit must be responsible for the event. Mr Zombie and others of his ilk work differently in that they look at an event and ask themselves how they can shift the responsibility away from Israel and who can they shift it to, and then it's a swift jump from there to those who were the victims must be responsible (eg man who loses leg in attack is a liar who fakes losing his leg in the attack). But while they differ there, the same selective use of 'evidence' that suits them and the discarding of anything that doesn't fit into their set-in-concrete solution makes the Mr Zombies and the conspiracy theorists of this world pretty close kin...

And now the links to the articles posted in the Australian media rebutting this hoax nonsense...

Ambulance attack evidence stands the test

The Age visited the yard where the bombed out ambulances are now parked. This reporter saw the ambulance that Mr Fawaz was in. It appeared to have been hit by a weapon that punctured a huge hole through the back. The zombietime.com only shows the picture of the second ambulance that had a smaller puncture through the top where there was a pre-existing vent in the centre of the vehicle.

The holes in the ambulances, parked in the coastal town of Tyre on the Mediterranean, are now covered in rust.

Based on photos of the ambulance's exterior that do not reveal any blood, the site suggests that Mr Fawaz incurred his injury elsewhere and was "paraded before the cameras as a victim of an Israeli missile".

While the interior of the ambulance has been gutted, a Red Cross volunteer who was in the same ambulance as Mr Fawaz said he did bleed onto his stretcher, but not excessively as his leg had been cauterised.


This next one is an editorial from the Australian. For those who aren't aware, the Australian is Rupert Murdoch's flagship publication and is notorious for its conservative stance, which includes an over-the-top support of everything Israel does. So this editorial speaks volumes and also explains the glowing praise of Downer surrounding them pointing out that he fell for propaganda.

Red Cross rocket snares Downer

In the media's defence, war reporters often work under time pressure in the most trying of circumstances. And casualty numbers can be imprecise in the immediate aftermath of violence. That the truth is not always easy to discern must be better appreciated by Mr Downer following his embrace of the Lebanese ambulance incident, as presented by internet site http://www.zombietime.com. In his speech to PANPA, Mr Downer said the incident, in which it was claimed Israel had deliberately bombed a Red Cross ambulance, did not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place. This newspaper was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against. While his point may be true, that most media have taken a pro-Lebanon, anti-Israeli stance, what Mr Downer's experience most highlights is the benefits of an unbiased, well-resourced, established media, as opposed to its new online cousin. In this case, readers have a choice, a website that relies on analysing photographs a long way from the action or media with resources on the ground. Mr Downer is correct that the first duty of responsible media is to get the facts straight even when that story might not necessarily conform to existing opinions or prejudices. But, as his experience highlights, this is equally true for politicians.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. great work

:thumbsup:

but don't be surprised to hear some completely ludicrous spin.

"To criticize Zionism is to confront and endless wall of denial."

--The late Edward W. Said

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Thanks n/t

[pelsar]

38. the only reasonable aspect...

As well as that, the rockets came from drones. From what I've read, they're smaller weapons, not the larger ones that are fired from war-planes. One of the victims told The Age reporter who interviewed him: 'It was a drone because if it was a warplane we wouldn't be alive."

except that its not true....the missles used on drones are the same as used on helicopters....Hellfire missiles

so what brings us the simple unanswered question:

how is it that in gaza the cars are burned and full of twisted metal after a hit...and this ambulance here is in one piece?

anybody.....all it is a simple question.....doesnt even require any expertise in munitions....just comparison of missle hits in gaza vs the ambulance...come guys...its not that hard to even try?

[Lurking Dem]

39. And what about the rust?

The story had more holes than the ambulance.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Did you bother reading any of my post?

It seems you and pelsar are just interested in repeating the same debunked and rusty crap ad-nauseum.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Pelsar, I suggest reading this thread...

Someone has already answered yr question. Asking the same question multiple times in the same thread is pretty ridiculous, especially when you ignore the question that was asked in my post and totally ignore my post in its entirety. Any comments on the editorial in the Australian? Any reason why you find it easier to call the victims, eyewitnesses and everyone else who was actually there liars? If yr to be believed (and btw, I don't believe you given yr extremely partisan stance) then why hasn't the IDF said that they weren't responsible? Why has the IDF unofficially apologised to the Lebanese Red Cross? I imagine it must be easier to ignore those questions as they don't fit nicely into the Evil Lying Victims Faking Their Injuries theory that's been concocted. I have about as much respect for that sort of theory as I do for any conspiracy theory - none....

[pelsar]

42. i didnt see an answer...

please point me to it.....

i also read you post....which is why i found the one apsect about the "smaller missle"..which turns out not to be true. Is everybody lying?..I dont know, nor does it change the aspect of the ambulance not being twisted metal.

and the IDF....apologies lots of time to the world press, even though they did nothing wrong...its a bit of a small controversy here:

by the time they finish checking its already yesterdays news, so the question comes up: to deny and afterwards discover they're wrong and admit they lied, in which case it will be front page news or to apologise and hope it goes away..

unlike many here, i dont believe truth and facts "have a side"....just give me an reasonable explanation why that missle didnt turn the ambulance into twisted metal...thats all...one that i can check and believe if true.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Here's a link to it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=148879&mesg_id=148935

Not that I expect you'll be happy with it as it's not what you want to hear. If you think yr someone who doesn't believe truth and facts "have a side" then to convince me yr posts would have to reflect that, and they don't reflect that at all. You give it away even in this post when you say 'and the IDF....apologies lots of time to the world press, even though they did nothing wrong'. You admit that you've already made yr mind up the IDF did nothing wrong in the same post as you say 'just give me an reasonable explanation why that missle didnt turn the ambulance into twisted metal...thats all...one that i can check and believe if true'.

[pelsar]

46. it best to copy my whole quote...not half-its more honest

to deny and afterwords discover they're wrong and admit they lied, in which case it will be front page news or to apologies and hope it goes away.


see thats my whole quote which says: sometimes they're right and sometimes they wrong....

onto the missle....your pictures are from a shell (the one the kid is holding....notice the mess it caused even though it didn't explode...and notice that its still there...in one piece.

assuming the hellfire missile didn't explode its actually entering the car with far more force (its rocket propelled) then the shell which is falling via gravity. so if it just "entered the vehicle and since its 164cm long....its going to a lot more damage than a mere hole and the disappear.

BUT your witnesses talk about a blast:
When he came to after the blast....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ambulance-attack-evidence-stands-the-test/2006/09/01/1156817099370.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


so which is it?....did it explode or not?...lets at least clarify that....

and for the record i've haven't even bothered reading any sites about it...its was obvious from the start. But since you obviously believe its real....at least provide something reasonable that sounds plausible.

as far as the IDF screwups....happens, its just people making decisions...sometimes right sometimes wrong, were just regular people....

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Pelsar, you've made the claim repeatedly in this thread...

Or are you now going to sit there and deny that you've said in that yr mind was already made up? eg 'and for the record i've haven't even bothered reading any sites about it...its was obvious from the start.'

onto the missile...you must be confusing me with another poster when you said 'your pictures'. Or is everything to do with this attack now mine eg 'your witnesses...your pictures'? Also, yr making an assumption that just because *you* say the rocket must have been a hellfire that it's a fact that everyone must accept without question. Well, pelsar, I'm not going to swallow it without asking some pertinent questions about it. Where's the proof that it's not possible to fire smaller rockets from a drone? If it's not possible to do it, then that raises some concerns on my part. As my standards are a bit higher than one or two folk in this thread, please don't waste everyone's time by posting a link to partisan sites lacking in credibility like zombietime or LGF etc...

As for yr belief that anyone who doesn't believe in this particular 'hoax' story has to prove to you that it's real - that's not how it works. The onus is on you to prove an event didn't happen. Let's use the MIHOP folk as an example. Do you honestly expect me to be under an obligation to prove to them that the Sept 11 attacks weren't the work of the CIA, Mossad and whoever else they think of? The onus is on them to prove that their version of events is the factual one....

And yes, I obviously do believe that the attack happened. I had and still have no reason to believe that attacks during the recent conflict by either side were bullshit. To do otherwise is to call the victims and eyewitnesses liars, and as that's a further victimising of victims, it's not something I'd be doing without some deep and serious thought beforehand, and I'd need some real evidence as well. Both of those things are sorely lacking in the claims that this didn't happen...

Now I know if some guy on the internet says something's true, then that's all I need to know. It's so refreshing to suddenly be so open-minded and willing to learn! Anyway, I must run. I've just heard there's a new website up called The Invasion Of Lebanon Hoax where a one man armed only with a rudimentary knowledge of website construction and a lot of time on his hands proves that the invasion of Lebanon never happened and in reality it was a bunch of out of work actors, recently decommissioned Australian military equipment that dates back to WWII, and a veritable who's who of foreign journalists from every corner of the globe all armed with the mission to Make Israel Look Bad ;)

[pelsar]

84. your confusing what i believe with "my mind is made up"

to me its obvious that it wasnt a missle...yet at the sametime i'm open to hear some new info that i didn know about that may in fact change it...thats the challenge, if your up to it.

you wrote:The onus is on you to prove an event didn't happen

one cant prove what didnt happen, i can only relate to the evidence and say what you believe is impossible because...and show that.

as far as i understand there are several versions out now (i've not done any internet research, just what i've read from here)

a helicopter firing missile
a drone firing missile (a smaller missile)

explosion of missiles
no explosion of missile (this was via the picture you linked me to and the comment, the witnesses at the ambulance incident as i understand talked only of an explosion)

correct me if i'm wrong here...since those are the base....and of those I understand your believing the exploding missle (either via a drone or helicopter)

whereas i can appreciate the principle of not wanting to victimize the victim (i.e. as in rape trials etc)...in this case its pretty academic as the real victims are not here being interrogated etc,....were not "hurting them" by questioning their version of events.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. No, I'm not confusing it at all...

Pelsar, I'll take up yr 'challenge' the day I decide to start taking up 'challenges' from conspiracy theorists. If you'd read my post, you'd know that already...

Yr mind is well and truly made up, pelsar. I've asked you what was a very simple question, and it was one that was totally ignored. Show me some evidence (from a credible source rather than zombietimes etc) that a drone is not capable of firing smaller weapons. That's what I want to see...

btw, on victimisation, if you'd even read one of the articles I'd posted you'd see that victims are being victimised by this. And let's not try to put perfume on something that stinks. Zombietimes and his crew of zombie believers aren't merely 'questioning' their version of events - they're labelling them as liars....

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. No, he has not answered my question...

He hasn't even attempted to provide proof from a credible source that drones are not capable of firing smaller weapons. I may have missed it though, so could you point me to where in his replies he provided me with a credible source that provided what I was asking for? Thanks...

[msmcghee]

91. I have no idea why my careful reply . .

. . was deleted - but small or large - missiles are not fired straight down from above their target. The size of the missile has nothing to do with it.

But even accepting that, the hole in the roof was about 1 foot in diameter. Air to Ground missiles that large are typically used against very hard targets. Concrete command bunkers, active artillery emplacements, large tanks, etc. They are very expensive and heavy and are typically fired by fighter bombers - not helicopters. Smart bombs are much cheaper for most larger targets.

The idea that large Air to Ground (close to a million dollars each) would be used to attack an ambulance that could be totally destroyed with a burst of 20mm canon fire (probably about $50.00) just doesn't make sense. Militaries typically don't have a lot of those expensive missiles in inventory and would tend to save them for very high-value targets.

You are suggesting that Israel wasted two, million-dollar weapons (that apparently failed to explode but then totally disappeared) on a couple of ambulances holding injured civilians - so the world could then accuse Israel of war crimes that are serious enough that many Americans would demand that the US withdraw military aid to Israel. Does that make sense to you somehow?

A small missle does not make a hole that's a foot in diameter. But no matter what size missile it was, where are the slots in the roof that the fins would cut as they entered? Even if they were sheared off by the thin sheet metal of the roof (very unlikely) they would have bent the metal back. But there is an extremely clean hole there - perfectly round with no fins marks or cuts. The round hole looks like it was cut with a sheet metal tool.

That's because it was. No missile went through the roof of that ambulance. Everything about the story is nonsense. Not one part of it holds up.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. As the moderators. They'll explain why yr post was deleted...

Or read the rules and abide by them. Or both...

The size of the missile has everything to do with it. Pelsar said that it couldn't have been a smaller missile as drones only fire hellfires. Which is why I've asked for some proof that drones aren't capable of firing smaller missiles. I see that the proof and any source at all, let alone a credible one, is still not forthcoming. I'm not interested in yr opinions, but in facts, which is why I'd like to see some credible evidence provided to answer my question.....

And seeing it's very obvious you haven't read the articles I posted, here they are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=148879&mesg_id=148988

[Scurrilous]

92. I read somewhere...

...on a quasi-military site that there are a number of weapons available to Israel that are capable of leaving a hole that size. I believe they mentioned an air-to-ground system called VIPER. Supposedly this system has a 44lb. warhead. The guy on the site who mentioned VIPER said the photos claiming the ambulances were hit by 'missles' are not a hoax, just mislabled.

[msmcghee]

93. There was a Viper A/G missile produced in the early '70s..

The program was cancelled. That one had an 18 inch diameter body and a 4ft wingspan. If Israel was using that ancient technology I doubt it would make a clean 12" hole with no damage from the fins - fail to explode - and then totally disappear.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Thanks, I might go do some reading about those systems..

Given that the IDF itself hasn't confirmed or denied that the incident happened, it's pretty clear that they hit it, but the question is what sort of weapon they were hit with. Maybe the IDF should employ a few of the posters in this thread as their new PR people ;)

[pelsar]

101. this is logic?

Given that the IDF itself hasn't confirmed or denied that the incident happened, it's pretty clear that they hit it
_________________
the IDF says maybe yes maybe no.....and you define that as a yes

how does that work....the logic behind it, i'm quite curious.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Yes, it's logical...

If the whole attack was as outlandish as you claim, then the IDF would have been very quick to point out they couldn't have been involved. They haven't, and in fact have unofficially apologised to the Lebanese Red Cross....

[msmcghee]

104. You keep coming up with "yes buts . . " . .

. . no matter what is said to refute your premise.

Here's a suggestion. Pick the single most damning claim from the (supposed) witnesses - or the single most damning photograph. Whatever you think proves without a doubt that Israel fired two missiles, one at each of these ambulances.

Maybe you are right and I'm just failing to see the clarity of your logic.

Here's your chance to convince anybody following this thread that you are right. Certainly, there is at least one piece of evidence there that proves you right beyond a doubt.

In your opinion, what is it?

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Actually, I don't. neither do I have a premise...

..other than when I see reports of attacks in areas of conflict from credible media sources I'm not inclined to automatically disbelieve them. Nor am I interested in convincing anyone of anything, but I'm pretty sure I've already said that and it's been ignored. Just like what I said in the post yr replying to has been ignored...


You have yet to provide any shred of credible evidence that this attack didn't happen and that human rights groups, victims and eyewitnesses are all liars. As yr the one making and supporting very serious allegations, the onus is on you to prove it. You have failed to do so. You've had more than enough opportunity to do so, and have ignored what the Australian said when they investigated it - btw, they actually went to Lebanon to do it thorougly. Did you or zombietimes do that?

[msmcghee]

106. I have probably written more than a thousand . .

. . words in this forum explaining exactly why every aspect of these charges are bogus.

If you have no premise then why all the assertions about small vs. larger missiles. You have premises when they suit you. When they are refuted - then you say you don't have any premises - that you don't need them.

Forget all the evidence and proof issues. Why has no human rights organization or governmental body or the UN or the government of Lebanon even hinted that they are interested in charging Israel with war crimes over this incident? Why is no-one investigating it? Why is no newspaper reporting on it?

Why, in Amnesty International's recent meticulous search for war crimes by Israel and their subsequent report, is this not even mentioned anywhere in their report?

Give it up Violet. It's over.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. You could write 10,000 words...

And if none of them contain actual evidence from credible sources and just yr own opinions, then yr no more providing evidence than if you wrote five words. And that's the thing. You haven't provided any evidence or proof from credible sources and instead all I've seen is accusations of lying and bias aimed at victims, eyewitnesses, human rights groups and the media....

You ask why is no-one investigating the accusations of zombietimes? If you'd read the editorial I posted from the Australian, they did, though they came up with a conclusion that there was no reason to believe that the actual events had happened as reported...

Give up what? Making fun of conspiracy theorists? Not in this lifetime! :)

[msmcghee]

109. Hmmm

Violet: "If you'd read the editorial I posted from the Australian, they did, though they came up with a conclusion that there was no reason to believe that the actual events had happened as reported..."

And therefore we should believe that the events happened as reported . . and not believe a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Pretty funny.

BTW - what conspiracy theory. No-one here has proposed any conspiracy. We have just pointed out - in meticulous detail - using logic and reason and the evidence reported by the Lebanese - how the events could not be as they reported them.

And your Aussie newspaper agrees with our conclusion.

You still have offered no plausible reason (nor any reason) why no group or government in the world, not even Lebanon whose ambulances were supposedly attacked by Israeli weapons of some sort - is pursuing Israel for war crimes over this event.

Is it that hard to admit that you are wrong?

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I made a massive typo in my post...

And your Aussie newspaper agrees with our conclusion.


Who's we? You and one or two *true believers* in this thread? Of course anyone who had read the article from the Australian would have realised I missed a word in what you quoted from me. The Australian came to the conclusion that there was no reason to believe that the actual events had NOT happened as reported. Sorry for the confusion there....

As you obviously haven't read the Australian editorial, here it is again...

'In the media's defence, war reporters often work under time pressure in the most trying of circumstances. And casualty numbers can be imprecise in the immediate aftermath of violence. That the truth is not always easy to discern must be better appreciated by Mr Downer following his embrace of the Lebanese ambulance incident, as presented by internet site http://www.zombietime.com . In his speech to PANPA, Mr Downer said the incident, in which it was claimed Israel had deliberately bombed a Red Cross ambulance, did not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place. This newspaper was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against. While his point may be true, that most media have taken a pro-Lebanon, anti-Israeli stance, what Mr Downer's experience most highlights is the benefits of an unbiased, well-resourced, established media, as opposed to its new online cousin. In this case, readers have a choice, a website that relies on analysing photographs a long way from the action or media with resources on the ground. Mr Downer is correct that the first duty of responsible media is to get the facts straight even when that story might not necessarily conform to existing opinions or prejudices. But, as his experience highlights, this is equally true for politicians.'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20308892-7583,00.html

Much as I don't much like the Australian, it's far far more credible than any individual poster here...


You keep on repeating over and over and over that you've provided credible evidence. You haven't. You've repeated ad nauseum nonsense on some idiot's one-man website while totally ignoring anything that reputable media sources who have actually travelled to Lebanon to investigate have said. That sort of behaviour is common among the conspiracy theorists who just as you do with this event, claim that what they're clinging to isn't a conspiracy theory...

I haven't answered yr question as it's a totally ridiculous one that has nothing to do with anything...

It is hard for me to admit that I'm wrong when I can't see where I'm wrong on this. I have no reason not to believe the reports I read in the newspaper and nothing has been presented to make me think that I shouldn't believe it...

[msmcghee]

114. When I ask . .

" . . why no group or government in the world, not even Lebanon whose ambulances were supposedly attacked by Israeli weapons of some sort - is pursuing Israel for war crimes over this event."

You answer, "I haven't answered yr question as it's a totally ridiculous one that has nothing to do with anything..."

You have asserted that Israel attacked two ambulance with "some weapons". That is an obvious and egregious war crime if it were true.

Saying that my question is ridiculous pretty well shows that that the accusations are nothing but a fabrication. I'm done here. Have a good night (or day in Australia I suppose).

[Violet_Crumble]

115. There appears to be some confusion on yr part...

You have asserted that Israel attacked two ambulance with "some weapons".

That 'assertion' is not an assertion made by me, but what has been reported by very reliable sources as having happened. You and that zombietimes guy are the ones making assertions, accusations and fabrications, and still you haven't provided a shred of credible evidence. It's a shame that you couldn't have bothered reading the editorial from the Australian before you were 'done'. Maybe when you return to this thread tomorrow you might actually read it?

[Violet_Crumble]

108. Have you got a link to the Amnesty International report?

I haven't read it and wouldn't mind taking a look...

[msmcghee]

110. Here it is.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006

[Violet_Crumble]

113. Thanks. I'll have a read through it this afternoon n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

122. I read the AI report...

Why, in Amnesty International's recent meticulous search for war crimes by Israel and their subsequent report, is this not even mentioned anywhere in their report?

You led me to beleive it was an exhaustive list of war crimes committed by Israel, which it isn't. As the title of the report suggests, it's a report on Israeli attacks on the Lebanese infrastructure, and the report is divided into civilian homes, water facilities, electricity and fuel supply, environmental damage, roads and bridges, airports, ports, hospitals, communications, and economic infrastructure. The report also doesn't mention Israel's bombing of the UN outpost, nor the bombing in Qana. Guess that means they're hoaxes as well?

[pelsar]

117. so logic is based on speed of reply?

If the whole attack was as outlandish as you claim, then the IDF would have been very quick to point out

______

so first the IDF says we dont know, and according to you...that means YES

and if they dont answer quick enough that also means YES

interesting set of logic rules

(i dont know about any informal apology to the redcross, but i've already explained the "catch22 situation" in saying or not saying something).

[Violet_Crumble]

121. Huh??

first the IDF says we dont know, and according to you...that means YES

and if they dont answer quick enough that also means YES

interesting set of logic rules

Sure is. Considering that's not my logic, pelsar, but yrs..


i dont know about any informal apology to the redcross,

You would have if you'd read the article I posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x148879#148988 I noticed you replied to that post, so I wrongly assumed that you had read the articles....


'While the Lebanese Red Cross said that Israel had issued a "verbal" unofficial apology for the strike, ICRC spokesman in Beirut Hisham Hassan did not want to confirm it, saying its discussions with Israel were private.'

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ambulance-attack-evidence-stands-the-test/2006/09/01/1156817099370.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[pelsar]

124. then explain your logic:

what part is not correct?

your wrote:
if the whole attack was as outlandish as you claim, then the IDF would have been very quick to point out...
I understand that to mean that speed of reply is related to truth

Given that the IDF itself hasn't confirmed or denied that the incident happened, it's pretty clear that they hit it
that seems to mean, if i dont say anything, it means i did it

________

let me try a different scenario using that logic: If im accused of robbing a bank, and i'm asked about it andi dont answer (neither confirm nor deny and in fact i dont say anything, and if i do deny it but i dont do it fast enough according to your rules of logic: i'm guilty.

if i didnt understand something here, perhaps you could try explaining it a different way?

and as you wrote above: the israeli message to Beruit was not confirmed, was private and unofficial....pretty much disqualifies it from being proof of anything...or can we use private, unofficial conversations now as proof of intent (got tons of them...."Friday at the Mosque" is quite rich with unofficial intentions) ( I missed it when i read your post...read it too fast)

[Violet_Crumble]

125. I already have...

You understand wrong. 'been very quick' is a figure of speech, and it's not literal....

'If I dont' say anything'?? Since when was I talking about *you*?? Anyway, no, it doesn't mean that..

Maybe if you stopped taking my comments and breaking them up into tiny snippets and then claiming it's something that I didn't say it'd be easier for you to understand...

I see. So you think the Lebanese Red Cross is lying about the Israeli apology? Strange how in yr scenario everyone but Israel lies...

[pelsar]

126. unofficial and private are exactly that....

i dont whether the lebanese red cross is lying or the IDF...your quote is very specific...unofficial and private...not for public use....

so what does this mean?

Given that the IDF itself hasn't confirmed or denied that the incident happened, it's pretty clear that they hit it

if someone doesnt say "yes or no"....how can that be a "yes"....though i dont see how i misunderstood, you still havent explained it.....

the reason i ''break them up, is to understand them"...if i'm missing something, then feel free to explain it.

anyway we've diverted...i was expecting an answer on the missles...the smaller one that is shot from drones and makes flaming sheetmetal out of cars in gaza.....but in lebanon they make big holes, blow up inside and leave the frame intack including paint job.

[Violet_Crumble]

127. Who said anything about the IDF lying??

i dont whether the lebanese red cross is lying or the IDF

The only ones yr accusing of lying are the Lebanese Red Cross. They said they got an unofficial apology and yr calling bullshit on them having gotten an unofficial apology...

Pelsar, I don't know how much fucking simpler I could have made my explanation when you asked the first time. And that's the thing. You demand answers even after people have answered and so I'll make this very clear for you. Please don't ask me again to either explain something that was so simple it can't be simplified even further...

You were expecting an answer on the missiles? Yr not getting one from me so don't ask again. Hope that's simple enough for you...

[Scurrilous]

116. Correction...

...it's called the Viper Strike.

According to this article it can be modified to take out a soft target without killing the people inside.


http://www.special-operations-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=588


The US has already deployed this system in Iraq. I wonder if the IDF has some also.

[msmcghee]

119. This is interesting but I'm not sure how it applies here.

From reading the article it seems that Viper Strike is not a missile, but a modified version of existing BAT submunitions. (BAT stands for "Brilliant Anti-Tank".) These are smart bomblets that are carried in a missile that are released over a battle area where they use infra-red or laser designators to find their way to specific targets. Once the larger missile carrying them releases them it is spent and falls to the ground. The submunitions use various target tracking capabilities to autonomously select from many dispersed targets and hopefully take them out.

That doesn't seem relevant to this situations for several reasons. However, as an aside they did describe their ability to use the infrared seeker of these BAT submunitions to hit the "engine deck" of a vehicle and produce little "collateral" damage when the warhead was removed. This could be relevant - but any missile with suitable guidance and the explosives removed could conceivably be used for that. Also, why use a system (BAT) capable of taking out a dozen or more heavily armored tanks with one shot for one or two ambulances? And also, - the ambulance photos show the engine compartment intact and a hole in the roof of the ambulance - that the witnesses claim was caused by a missile of some type. So that doesn't seem so relevant after-all.

This leaves us where we were before - with the (remote) possibility that a missile hit the ambulance and did not explode - either on purpose or it was a dud - it makes no difference. (An exploding missile of any design would have left nothing but twisted hulk.)

OK - what kind of missile comes straight down from above? Every video I have seen of these missiles show them coming in at a relatively low angle. If it was fired from a drone the angle might be higher as drones use their small size to allow them to over-fly their targets. Helicopter fired missiles are almost always low angle - as the helicopter uses the clutter of the horizon for concealment.

The problem here is that drones do not (can not) carry missiles that are a foot in diameter. Missiles large enough to put a 1 ft diam hole in the roof weigh far more than a drone could lift and would generally dwarf the drone carrying it. Then there's the other questions. If it did not explode (making the driver a liar automatically) where is it? There would have to be some identifiable remains of the missile. Remember the photos of the scuds on the ground in Tel Aviv? Those came in at a very high speed (ballistic) but still left very recognizable remains - even after they were hit by Patriots. A 1 ft diameter missile would be 10 to 15 ft long. It would have fins probably spanning 3 to 4 ft. Where are the cuts (or bent back metal) in the roof for these large fins? It goes on and on.

But, Scurrilous, there's a larger issue here. I don't care if Israel committed war crimes by attacking these ambulances. I have no illusions that Israel is incapable of committing "war crimes". If they did it then they should be condemned. I will join you and others here in doing that. I have no reason to defend Israel "no matter what". My only interest is fairness.

Most people in this forum who are condemning Israel over this incident - have no problem with the concept that news organizations spin and twist the news - to conform to their readers' expectations - when that spin makes the left look bad. We all hate it when the RW media says that we are out-of-touch, incapable of defending America, blame America first, etc. Yet, many of these same people, are ready to accept the most outrageous spin - when it supports their beliefs.

I have a background in the design and testing of missile systems going back many years. I would not say that I am an expert on current designs but I am quite familiar with how missiles are used generally and what they are capable of. I will also admit, that despite my background, I could be wrong about this. If I am I'll gladly say so.

All I'm asking for is some plausible way of putting the evidence (that was presented by the Lebanese side) together in a narrative that makes sense. That says - here's what happened - and the pieces fit together. In this case however, there is nothing that fits - nothing that makes sense to me.

I think what happened is that a couple of ambulance personnel decided on their own (or perhaps were encouraged by some friends in Hizb'allah, or they could even be members themselves) to do their part for the war effort. So they staged this incident to be able to accuse Israel of egregious pre-meditated war-crimes. I think they reasoned that the holes in the exact center of the Red Cross emblem would be dramatic proof that Israel targetd the ambulance purposely and that it could not possibly have been a mistake. All they had to do was take the ventilators off the roofs of two ambulances, hack up the surface with an axe or something to look like shrapnel and find a "victim" to corroborate their tale. (The story about the missile neatly amputating his leg and then disappearing and/or exploding into a huge fireball is quite imaginative.)

They hoped that with the help of some sympathetic (anti-Israel) news people (who I think were given special acces to the scene afterward) that the original accusations would be carried prominently around the world. I would not be surprised if the news organization in Australia that carried the story was not in on the project - and thought they were doing their part perhaps, to save the lives of Lebanese civilians. They all figured that before this could be checked out in the confusion of the war - that it would have served its purpose. To add to the rising public pressure on Israel to stand down. I think they succeeded.

If you really think I am wrong - then please offer something - anything that will make sense out of the many contradictory and sometimes impossible versions of this account that are being defended. Or, if you don't think you are up to the task, find some human rights organization that believes this is a real account of war crimes - and I'll follow up on that for you. I have been unable to find any organization doing that myself - which seems to confirm my suspicions. But, as I said, if Israel did this, then let's hang 'em for it. I'll be on your side. But, so far, my sense of reason and fairness and all the evidence presented so far - compels me to call BS on this whole episode.

Cheers.

[msmcghee]

120. To check further, I found the following . .

Susan Goldberg, the journalist who filed the intial report in the Guardian on this incident is an extremely anti-Israel reporter. Type ("Susan Goldberg" Israel) into Google and you will be shown links to dozens of virulently anti-Isreal pro-Palestinian stories - that invariably accuse Israel of the worst possible actions and motives. I saw no stories where Israel is seen as fair or moderate in any of its actions that she reported. I saw no stories that depicted Israel's enemies as anything but helples victims of Israel's miltaristic racism and apartheid against Arabs.

The Guardian, is seen by most as Britain's most anti-Israel newspaper. She is also listed as an organizer of the group "Not In Our Name" which hardly qualifies her as an impartial observer. She was removed from her position as ME correspondent in 2001 and given the Washington assignment.

But, check for yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22susan+goldberg%22+israel&btnG=Google+Search

Despite that she is not the ME correspondent at the Guardian I can see why Hizb'allah arranged for her and her crew to "witness" the "horrible attack" on the two ambulances - and why she is absolutely certain that what she saw was proof of that war crime.

Added on edit: I did a similar search for Sean Smith, the photographer. It seems he has won many awards for his wonderful photo essays on the suffering of Arabs at the hands of Israel's military might.

[pelsar]

98. i make up my mind via reason and logic...

give me a logical explanation...better than what i have and I'll change my mind....its that simple. I dont give a shit who the "zombietimes" is (you keep on mentioning that for some reason that i dont get, since i've never mentioned it or referred to it, or knew it even existed until now)

so i understand you believe the drone theory of firing smaller missles....

Only the larger UAV (drones) can carry missles..and its not a matter of carrying smaller loads....they're are only two to chose from: the hellfire or maverick

AGM-62 Walleye 825 lb (huge warhead)
AGM-65 Maverick 125 lb
AGM-114 Hellfire 6.7 kg Mach 1.17 (just the force from such a missle would send a van flying ....)
AGM-130 535 lb

http://www.danshistory.com/smartm.shtml

there are two relevant air to ground missles: hellfire (smaller) and the Maverick (larger)-both are designed to totally destroy the ground target.... thats it, militarys dont make missiles that only punch holes in thin skinned vehicles and dont kill the passengers.....even a hand grenade thrown in a car will kill the passengers, burn the seats, blow out the windows etc

only the hellfire can be fired from helicopters, and that would probably be the one on any UAV..(the smaller missile)

the israeli drone firing missiles have been used in gaza...totally destroying the cars hit, which is the reason the missiles are chosen.
it would do the same to an ambulance obviously...thats your "smaller missle"...the Hellfire.

i did go and look for some pictures....and if the ones i saw are true, i'm rather surprised
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Lebanon_Red_Cross_Ambulance_Target_Israel_Air_Strike&id=P7310041
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Lebanon_Red_Cross_Ambulance_Target_Israel_Air_Strike&id=P7310040

the ambulance is intact....nothing burned inside

compare those to these picts from gaza.....using the smaller hellfire missile: (lower right)
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20Photos/2003%20News%20photos/June/June%2010-12.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10366915

theres nothing left but burnt metal frames.....all using the smaller hellfire missile (from helicopters)

now you can tell me that there must be an even smaller missile but that would be just making it up...since i do not know of nor did i find anything smaller than the hellfire...and the damage it does is clear by the pictures i linked...total destruction of the vehicle. (One cannot prove what doesnt exist....your missile smaller than a hellfire-but one can BELIEVE it exists if it suits a purpose)

[Violet_Crumble]

99. That's very doubtful...

Why keep on making the same stupid demand instead of reading the first sentence in my post? I'm not the slightest bit interested in changing the mind of anyone who clings to conspiracy theories as I find their contributions to the internet world far too entertaining. Is that clear enough for you?

You don't understand why I keep on mentioning zombietimes? If you'd read the OP you'd know why they're getting mentioned and I doubt very much you didn't know of zombietimes until now...

You've only posted one link that looks like it might be discussing what I was asking, so I'll go take a look...

btw, you keep on going on only about one ambulance. Why is that? You do realise that there were two involved and the second one you are talking about was the lesser damaged of the two?

[pelsar]

100. my discussion is not with zombietimes....

i found just those picutures of the ambulances....are they're others?...i also found the one the hole in the roof....but it doesnt show much else..still the same principle applies:

the smaller missile turns cars into metal flaming wrecks....as per the examples in gaza, it would obvously do the same to an ambulance which is not much larger and has the same metal skin.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. Yr discussion is with me, isn't it?

I think everyone's aware yr not having a discussion with zombietimes, pelsar...

I've got no idea how many photos there are of the ambulances. Nor can I muster up the obsession levels needed to even care...

[Englander]

44. Good compilation, Vi.

But, I bet it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the Indefensibles/megaphonies. The
conspiracy theory that zombie's selling, that all those news agencies, & reporters, & newspapers &
witnesses, & ICRC personnel, &tc are all lying, is what they want to believe.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Yeah, I already knew there's no convincing the *True Believers*

But it had gotten a lot of attention over here a few weeks back and I'd been following it and wondering if it'd rate a mention in the I/P forum. That the 'pro-Israel' newspaper The Australian actually sent someone to Lebanon to check it out and had the common sense to not fall for the propaganda of the zombie site was totally ignored. After reading this thread I wonder what reaction of the loudest ones in this thread would be if some moron on the internet decided to call a bombing of an Israeli home a hoax and to selectively handpick bits and pieces to build a case the same way Mr Zombie did that any conspiracy theorist would be proud of? It definately wouldn't be as accomodating a reaction as their gleeful acceptance of Mr Zombie's nonsense...

[pelsar]

47. give me somthing....

not witnesses, just simple evidence....exploding missles cause massive damage as in the cars in gaza..

or it didnt explode...lets start with that....

i can be convinced....IDF pilots have shot up IDF columnes in the past..shooting an ambulance is clearly possible......if you've got something other than a missle causing a blast yet not exploding and not making havoc of the ambulance....explain it to me...

btw you are one of the very very few people here to go beyond mere "sound bites" or quoting something and then leaving....that means you are not, what i call a "true believer"..... A "true believer" like any religious person cannot discuss something when the base is questioned, hence they tend to disappear on me.

[Englander]

78. Yeah, kudos to The Australian for being objective.

It's good to see there are limits to what 'pro-Israeli' papers will put their names to, if the choice is between believing the ICRC, or believing some site called zombietime, for any org wanting to be viewed as even the slightest bit objective, that decision shouldn't be very difficult to make. I mean, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories to be found on the internet, & zombietime's hateful nonsense is another contribution to that pile.

[Scurrilous]

79. Zombietime's seriesly hugh scoop didn't get much play in the U.S.

FOX News mentioned it briefly, but for the most part the MSM totally ignored the Zombie.

The ever-outraged Michelle Malkin wasn't happy about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2048190

[pelsar]

81. you asked (i didnt see this before....)

If this were a hoax (and in this case all the evidence points to it not being one), what would that prove? That the bombing of the UN post was a hoax? That all those children killed in Qana were just pretending to be dead to make Israel look bad and that after the media went away they got up and continued their lives? That Israel hasn't committed war crimes in Lebanon because they're all hoaxes?

if i miss one of you questions just pm me....i'll get to it:


you asked what does it prove?...nothing more than how "groupthink works"....that a story can be made up, travel the world and people will then believe it. A distortion of history for no other reason than an attempt to demonize someone / some people.

have enough of them, and one can educate a whole people in hate: for instance, we can list the "fictional stories that represent the jews/israels that circulate the globe, each one strengthening the other:

9/11
protocols of zion
zahars blue eyes
drinking palestenan/christian blood
jenin massacre
jenin (attacking the hospital)
aids laced candies
"penis shrinking" rays
body shrinking ray guns
gas
little muhammid (check the trajectory of the bullets......in relation to the IDF...very simple)

this is the short list.....after a list like that there obviously is no problem is assuming that israel is attacking ambulances.

and more so......us israelis see it as one more variation of the "evil israelis".....


so now you tell me, if its not true, if its made up (as in my above list), why did so many believe it?...why do you believe it and which version do you believe?

I would like to continue this to a real conclusion if you dont mind. To me its so obvious and i dont believe you have actually given it more than a simplist look.....your just adding it as "one more israeli crime" so simple so obvious....and thats why its bad to believe fictional stories.

[Violet_Crumble]

123. This thread is becoming very cumbersome...

..to the point where I almost missed spotting this post of yrs...

Um, pelsar. Israel DOES attack ambulances and this isn't the only time it's been done. Yr not going to seriously suggest that every attack on an ambulance by Israel has been a hoax, are you?

As for yr list of 'fictional stories', I noticed a few of them were blatant antisemitic ones. Are you suggesting that because of them I should automatically suspect any report of wrongdoing on Israel's part? There's also a fair few 'fictional stories' that have done the rounds about Arabs. Why not then treat any story of wrongdoing by Arabs the same way?

Y'know, pelsar. You keep repeating this "evil Israelis" line whenever anyone criticises Israel. So why don't you have the same attitude when it comes to criticism of Palestinians for example? I've never seen the "evil Palestinians" line trotted out...

What's a 'real conclusion'? You can believe what you like, but just because I've preferred to approach this rationally rather than knee-jerking, that doesn't mean that I haven't given it more than a fleeting glance. In fact, I read the zombietimes nonsense as well as the rebuttals from the Australian media very carefully...

[msmcghee]

48. This whole ridiculous accusation can be answered easily.

The accusation was that Israel had purposely targeted two Red Cross ambulances firing rockets capable of destroying a heavily armored tank - through the roof of both ambulances - in each case at the exact center of the red cross painted on the roof - in the exact location where a ventilator is normally placed on these ambulances - and that uses a mounting hole the exact same size as the holes the two rockets supposedly made - holes that can be seen in photographs (supplied by the accusers) that have flanges (bent outward) and screw holes around them just like those used to attach the ventilators. Hmmm.

The accusations are farcical on their face - but if such an attack were true then Israel and the commander who had ordered the attack as well as the personel who carried it out would be guilty of chargeable war-crimes under all rules of war familiar to civilized nations. Just bringing volatile charges like this in a credible international forum like the UN would be huge. (Actually the UN is not that credible any more.)

So I ask, why has not Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Commission, the ICRC, the Human Rights Watch or any other credible body brought such charges? Why are these organizations not even actively investigating these charges? Do you think AI has a pro-Israel bias? Why hasn't even the president of Lebanon brought such charges against Israel in the UN? This would be a very serious war crime - if true.

The primary witness/victim stated expicitly that he was standing by the door of the ambulance when the rocket entered through the roof and blew up inside the ambulance and that he saw a huge fireball come toward him and then he was thrown back several feet by the force of the explosion. Looking at the photos of that ambulance interior there is no evidence of fire damage.

I've been searching the UN website, the Red Cross (where they only print the original unverified report from the Lebanese Red Cross affiliate and say nothing more) and other sites. I can't find any current interest in this at all.

The man on a gurney inside the ambulance who had his leg supposedly severed by the exploding rocket (capable of wiping out a tank)* has no burns on him - although he claims the heat from the exploding rocket cauterized his leg thereby explaining the lack of any significant blood inside the ambulance. The driver who was supposedly thrown 15 feet by the fireball/explosion has no burn marks - not even singed eyebrows.

There is one obvious answer - the charges are bullshit - even to a casual observer. The zombietime report was not necessary to determine this. Anyone with even a working familiarity with modern munitions and delivery systems can see with even a cursory examination of the photographs supplied by those making the charges - that their explanation of how those ambulances were damaged is utter bullshit.

If there was any possibility that these charges were true, every major newspaper in the world would be all over this 24-7. If it were true it could justifiably change the official position of many civilized nations toward Israel and the legitimacy of Israel's struggle. But even Lebanon doesn't seem to want to pursue this. Instead, Lebanon is putting its legal resources to work charging Israel with causing an oil slick.

I can't find any interest in this even by those bodies who would benefit greatly if these charges could be proved. But, perhaps you can do better. Show me one instance where any credible NGO like AI or Doctors Without Borders has actually filed charges in some world court system like the UN regarding these bogus claims - or are even seriously investigating these potentially explosive charges. Show me one major newspaper who currently gives these charges that would shake the world if true - any credibility at all.

If you are so certain they are true - show me your letters to these organizations calling them to account for failing to bring charges against Isreal for these heinous war crimes - and their responses. That would be interesting.

And when you can't - tell me again about who are the true-believers here.

___________________________

* . . the AGM-114 (Hellfire) missile has a conical shaped charge warhead with a copper liner cone that forms the jet that provides armor penetration. This high explosive, antitank warhead is effective against various types of armor including appliqué and reactive. Actual penetration performance is classified. It can also be employed against concrete bunkers and similar fortifications.

___________________________

It is obvious that if those ambulances had been hit by such a missile they would each be almost unrecognizeable twisted hulks - there would be no paint not vaporized by the heat of the explosion - much less a red cross still clearly visible on the roof. Everyone within 100 feet of the explosion would be dead and anyone within 20 feet of the explosion would be as unrecognizeable as the ambulance would be.

And for the still credulous - I would add that it is ridiculous to think that Israel would have used the laser-targeting or shoot-and-forget lock-on-target type of very expensive guidance necessary for such cross-hair precision - on a weapon only powerful enough to cut a neat hole through a piece of sheet metal and then not explode.

[msmcghee]

51. OK - Are those in this thread accusing Israel of war-crimes . .

. . and who are also accusing those of us who are asking for some evidence of those war crime - of defending Israel regardless of that evidence - going to follow up on those accusations with some credible evidence -

. . or, having provided no credible evidence of those accusations nor shown that any international body finds those accusations credible . .

. . will they now retract those accusations just in the interest of basic honesty?

Remember, if you retract the accusations now you can still make them again later if you can come up with some actual evidence.

I am waiting.

[Spinoza]

53. Your questions--

" will they now retract those accusations just in the interest of basic honesty?"--

are really becoming annoying. Better cut it out.

[msmcghee]

54. Delete / dupe

[Spinoza]

57. Hey, take it easy.

Actually, I LOVE your questions. They are the right questions and the silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? I admire almost all of your posts and any disagreements are quite minor.

I was being sarcastic. (Yes, I know there is a 'sarcasm' logo, but I thought my own views were well enough known, that my sarcasm was evident, and I hate those fucking logos anyways.) Besides, I never put anyone on 'Ignore'. No opinions on DU genuinely upset or annoy me. What do I care what someone I don't know, and certainly don't respect, thinks about anything? So I am willing to read any and all posts. However, I admit there are some posters I deliberately will never directly respond to. Whats the use?

[msmcghee]

61. Thanks for explaining that. Really.

I thought I was losing my mind. :crazy:

Actually, I have had people misinterpret my sarcasm too. It is very difficult to accurately convey a complicated point of view in this format - no matter how hard I try some times.

Well, I'll just have to try harder. Thanks for the feedback. :toast:

[Englander]

83. I do. (Use ignore, that is).

In all the time I've been at DU, I've only used ignore four times, & there's only one 'ignored'
poster at the moment. It isn't too difficult to work out who that is, since I don't post in any
threads, or reply to any posts, by 'ignored'.

[msmcghee]

55. What is really becoming annoying is when . .

. . people make serious accusations which they can not back up yet keep insisting that they are true - when there is no real evidence for that.

They are seldom seriously challenged on that type of thing - but when they are and still can't back up their claims - they just move on and start more threads - with more fabricated claims.

If you find it annoying that I'm pointing that out - then that's what the ignore button is for.

[Spinoza]

58. Since I responded to your deleted duplicate message,

please see my response #57 above.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. Information on War Crimes committed by Israeli forces

International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

http://www.btselem.org/english/special/20060723_Lebanon.asp


The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde180072006

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

[msmcghee]

59. You posted that before.

Those are various groups who believe that Israel may have committed war crimes. There are lots of those. That's politics.

You need to find an actual accusation taken to the UN or some international body by a significant organization who places their credibility on the line by backing their accusations up with evidence.

This is a list of actual war crimes that have been committed since the legal term came into existence in 1907.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

Actually there has been one official accusation against Israel that hasn't been prosecuted yet:

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cases_before_the_International_Criminal_Court#Lebanon

The Lebanese Foreign Minister, Fawzi Salloukh, has called for Israelis to be prosecuted at the court in connections with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. He accused Israelis of committing a war crime with the bombing of Qana.<10>, and this was repeated by the Interior Minister, Ahmad Fatfat on 2 August who said "a file was being prepared". <11> <12> On 3 August Justice Minister Charles Rizk said that he would be submitting a file to the Security Council asking them to create a special court, similar to the Rwanda Tribunal, as neither Lebanon nor Israel are members of the ICC. <13> On 2 September Rizk formed a committee of legal and media personnel to gather evidence of war crimes for possible submission to the court. <14> Individuals have also made official complaints to the court prosecutor. <15><16>

The court would require a referral from Lebanon, Israel or the Security Council in order to have jurisdiction over these alleged crimes. In this case the prosecutor would be obliged to investigate all relevant crimes committed by all parties in the "situation".
_______________________________

This is pending and may not come to trial. If it does and Israel is found guilty I would join in condemnation of Israel for that crime.

But, there has been no other crediblle accusation of war crimes against Israel - much less a conviction.

It is noteworthy that the incident that is the subject of this thread is not even on anybody's radar. Any objective look at the "evidence" will show why.

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. every credible independent human rights organization in the world

that deals with these matters including and especially the Israeli ones believe Israel has committed and continues to all too frequently commit war crimes.

[msmcghee]

62. As I said . .

Those are various groups who believe that Israel may have committed war crimes. There are lots of those. That's politics. Also remember that "Human Rights Groups" - bless them all - have both financial and political reasons for stating in press releases that "they believe" that a party has committed war crimes.

One of those reasons is to get people who are highly motivated partisans for one side or the other to send them money. That's not the same as trying to make the case in an international court which require more than opinions

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. it is ludicrous to believe that all these many human rights organization

-some of them Israeli-- are just all coincidentally making up practically the same things and none of them are true. And it is ludicrous believe that this is all part of their fund-raising drive or to satisfy politicians.

I wonder how many humanitarian workers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or Lebanon believe that Israel does not commit war crimes?

[msmcghee]

67. It far more ludicrious to believe . .

. . that if all those human rights organizations actually believed without a doubt that Israel committed specific war crimes - that they would not bring some action against Israel in an international court to prove those charges.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. I just hope everyone decides to read a broad cross section of

reports and decides for themselves just how strong the evidence is. Many of these reports are extremely detailed and specific:

International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

Machsom Watch (Monitors abuse at checkpoints)

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/homePageEng.asp?link=homePage&lang=eng

[msmcghee]

63. Delete / dupe - what's going on DU?

[oblivious]

64. The question is whether the IDF deliberately targeted Red Cross ambulances

Is it not?

The photo issue is a red herring. The news reports seem consistent that several ambulances were hit. But since it could never be proven that they were deliberately targeted, I don't see how this could ever become a war-crime issue.

Or did I miss something?

[msmcghee]

65. You did (miss something).

If Israeli missiles actually went through the exact center of the roofs of two ambulances - clearly marked and lights flashing - there could be little doubt that Israel knew what it was doing and did it on purpose.

That's why the photos - supplied by those making the charges or by news photographers given access to the wrecked ambulances - that show that this could not possibly have happened - are not a red-herring.

Re: The news accounts.

Those are accounts of newspeople given access to two wrecked ambulances and to two (claimed) eye-witenesses. None of the news people saw the attack. They are simply relaying what the Lebanese driver and victim said had happened. The photos that the news-people took show that it is highly likely that they were lying.

[oblivious]

71. I disagree that hitting the exact centre necessarily means intent.

Even if the photos are true, it could have been an accident.

[msmcghee]

72. Certainly, this must be an example . .

. . of sarcasm on your part. Right?

[oblivious]

74. No sarcasm. Of course the pic looks bad, but are bombs THAT accurate?

I don't buy it. It would not be proof that the hit was intentional.

[pelsar]

76. normally one wouldnt know....

since when missles do hit cars they tend to blow them up into a flaming wrecks....so the exact hit tends to be obliterated. Hellfire missles however area accurate to the meter (in general).

if one wants to get in to angles and trajectories, which in this case is not neccessary since its obvious that no missle that exploded (as per the witnessess) actually hit the ambulance, but for the sake of further info, the missles fly a straight path. So to hit the top of the ambulance the helicopter would have had to be flying above and angled down almost at 80 degrees or so.....helicopters dont do that (at least not in war time).

apaches, etc stay low and shoot from low angles which reduces their visability, which means the vehicle would have been hit from the side.

but we dont even have to go into that....an exploding missle with 8kg of high explosive tends to "affect a vehicles appearance"

[breakaleg]

68. Can you show me where, in this thread, someone issued a charge of

war crimes in relation to this incident?

[msmcghee]

69. The accounts of the incident itself . . that are being . .

. . defended in this thread - as well as in numerous newspaper articles and editorials - specifically stated that attacking marked ambulances not being used to assist in war is a war crime and that Israel had committed war crimes by doing that.

I simply refer you to the first reply in this thread:

"Given that use of the clusterbombs and white phosphorous shells were in themselves a far greater war crime is the ambulance incident significant? Are the cluster bombs a fabrication too?"

It is obvious that " . . a far greater war crime . . " implies that the action it is being compared to is a war crime. In this one post the author manages to assert that not only is this a war crime but that Israel committs war crimes generally.

[breakaleg]

70. that's weak....

the quote you gave didn't say this was a war crime, it said there are far greater crimes, ie. war crimes, that are more pressing.

[msmcghee]

73. No, you said,

"Given that use of the clusterbombs and white phosphorous shells were in themselves a far greater war crime is the ambulance incident significant?

You were comparing the "ambulance incident" with "the use of the clusterbombs and white phosphorous shells".

You know, I'm really tired of all this mendacity. This is my last post on this. Enjoy.

[breakaleg]

75. Me? you are confused.