This time on journalists.
The air strike was one of several in Gaza on Saturday nightAn Israeli air strike on a car in Gaza City during a security operation has injured a Reuters news agency cameraman and a local journalist.
At least one rocket hit the car as the cameraman was filming, knocking him unconscious, while the second man received serious leg wounds.
The Reuters car was clearly marked all over as a media vehicle.
The Power Line blog (of Dan Rather fame) raises a question or two. In the interests of balance, Hot Air considers a missile attack possible.
Ambulance Update – as Melanie Phillips reports, the Lebanese Red Cross, whose high resolution photo of the ambulance has been used as evidence against the missile attack claim, have removed the image from their website. (I don’t agree with her btw that the affair demonstrates “unprecedented proportions” of hatred. It demonstrates a journalistic mindset, part bias, part laziness, that takes as gospel every story it’s fed by one side, without ever asking of its sources the famous Paxman question.)
Reuters Update – the Confederate Yankee blog had the bright idea of asking some armoured van manufacturers for their views. In their opinion, probably not a missile.
Evidence for the ICRC picture removal:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22297_ICRC_Removes_High-Res_Ambulance_Photo&only
Plus, an industry in denial.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/industry-in-denial.html
Why do you bother? The BBC isn’t biased, and most people except pressure groupies and obsessives like it the way it is. You’ve been wanking into the wind for, what, five years? and nobody pays a blind bit of notice.
You only have to look at the past month’s stream of special pleading to see that this is just another boring axegrinding Zionist site for Jews who are stricken with guilt because Israel is a busted flush and they’re secretly glad they’re living in safety among us evil antisemites.
So instead of thanking G-d for your good fortune in not being born in Herzl’s paradise, you repay your hosts by slagging off one of our greatest and most widely admired institutions. No wonder your kind always end up having to pack bags and move on. Miserable ingrates.
yawn… more trolling packed full of lies.
and i’m not jewish.
next.
What rock are they all crawling out from under lately?
… and I don’t live in the UK…
Albion4Ever & The Brits:
Why do you bother? The BBC isn’t biased, and most people except pressure groupies and obsessives like it the way it is. You’ve been wanking into the wind for, what, five years? and nobody pays a blind bit of notice.
Funny that YOU decided to come here. Why are you so concerned??? HMMMMMM
What we have here is a declaration by MP that the majority of western media did not bother to check out the story and blindly believed the Red Cross.
Neither her nor you can possibly know this.
Instead she has chosen to believe the “blogsphere” rather than established media, so convinced are you all of bias that you now take it as a given that they don’t ever bother to check that the story is true.
Pathetic – must try harder.
S.Weasel,
you can see the picture yourself (no thanks to the ICRC trying a bit of damage control). It is obviously NOT a missile hit or any other kind of Israeli plane launched weapon damage.
Hezb’Allah put a grenade on the roof and faked the story.
AntiCitizenOne – not all missile strikes are like the ones you see in hollyowwd movies.
The argument here is whether these trucks (lebanese RC ambulance and the Reuters armored van) were targeted and hit by Israeli ordinance. The Israelis have admitted that they did strike both vehicles. In the second example we have an explicit explanation as to why they deliberately targeted it: because it was the only vehicle near their soldiers, and they felt it was acting in a suspicious manner.
It wasn’t hit by a stray missile: it was deliberately targeted. As the reuters strike was almost identical to the ambulance strike, it is a pretty reasonable conclusion that that was targeted also. Therefore the original blogger is wrong, and all those who jumped on his bandwagon are wrong also.
Admit you’re wrong for once instead of flogging a dead horse.
ps – the “original blogger” I refer to above is the one at zombietimes who MP quotes as being more reliable than the worlds media. A “hoax” is not when something gets misreported, it’s when something is deliberately fabricated to look like something it isn’t. Unfortunately, as the Reuters vehicle confirmed, the ambulance strike looks exactly like what it is: an attack by an Israeli gunship.
“One of our greatest and most widely admired institutions”, eh?
If it’s so great, why does it have to extort £130+ a year from people on pain of going to prison? Wonder how many people would pay that much for rhe Beeb, given the choice. Frankly, the Monarchy’s a much greater institution and costs an infinitesimal fraction of the BBC’s exactions. And it doesn’t give us prissy little lectures on what we ought to think.
Might be admired by some people overseas, I suppose, but then again they don’t have to pay for it.
This morning the lead story on the BBC web-site was Olmert firm on Lebanon Blockade. The picture that was placed along side was of a woman in agony over the bomming of her house.(I presume) Thereby giving the impression that the blockade involved the bomming of civilian houses. Then they placed picture of Olmert and Annan. And now it is a picture of two israely soldiers on a tank. The first picture was grossly misleading. And why the last change?
re: ambulances
It looks like the conspiracy theorists have a new problem. A Red Cross manager has surfaced saying he was on duty on the night in question and has confirmed that 2 ambulances were in Qana at the appropriate time.
What’s more, from his name, he appears to be a Christian.
“Last night, the group manager of the first-aid team for the Lebanese Red Cross, George Kettaneh, insisted that two LRC ambulances had been attacked on the night of July 23, near Qana in southern Lebanon.
“I was on duty that night and every ambulance that moved in Lebanon I had to know about,” he said.
“I received phone calls from the ambulance drivers and it took us one hour to negotiate a ceasefire through the International Committee of the Red Cross.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20300357-7582,00.html
Weasel,
What type of weapon causes the type of damage seen on the ambulance? There is none.
A weapon that goes though the roof causing tears and rust then disapeers into thin air?
A weapon that conveiniently targets the roof in the air vent?
A weapon that causes no real damage inside and only buckles the roof?
A weapon that hits the top yet is fired you claim from a helicopter (i.e. it would hit the side).
A weapon that does no other damage even though the kinetic energy of a missile ALONE would have utterly destroyed the vehicle.
In coclusion this ambulance was obviously not hit by any air-launched weapon.
The first picture was grossly misleading. And why the last change?
Dutchie | 30.08.06 – 4:48 pm
They must have seen my post here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115677097870232727/#305854
😆
AntiCitizenOne : This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Firstly answer the question “are you an expert on all air launched ordinance?”
It seems likely to me that whatever ordinance struck the Reuters vehicle, was probably very similar to whatever struck the ambulance.
What’s funny here is that people who are not experts at all accusing others of being idiots for accepting the expert’s opinion…. and now getting shown to be idiots themselves for thinking that there’s only one (Hollywood) way for a missile to destroy a vehicle, and there is clear evidence to the contrary.
The argument isn’t to show that the ordinance that hit the ambulance was exactly a laser-guided Hellfire missile or whatever. The argument is to show that the ambulance was hit by something, and the claims that it was a fake based on the fact that it didn’t fit a non-expert’s specific missile destruction model is just plain wrong.
Finally- take a look at this come back, and admit you do not know enough about ballistics to make such statements as you just did.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ is an excellent demolition job with many well substantiated points each one sufficient to prove that it was a hoax
I’ve covered that already Dong – at least read from the top of the thread.
S. Weasel
I think you’ll find the word’s spelt “ordnance” rather than “ordinance” which is something else altogether.
Oi! You! Clear off or get your own fake name!
I, the original S. Weasel, am definitely NOT a Reuters-supporting, Phillips bashing moonbat. Which a Google search of the moniker will show…
Hi SWeasel
Which ‘expert’ weighed in on the matter? Or are you making up stuff about an ‘expert’ proclaiming his opinion about this, as to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE who claims expertise or any knowledge of munitions has supported the claim that a missile struck either the ambulance or the Reuters vehicle.
Are you seriously expecting an expert to tell everyone that missiles exist that do no more damage to unarmoured vahicles than to make holes in the roof? What about the claims that the ambulance interior was aflame – of which there is no photographic evidence? What about the claim that a patient in the ambulance had his leg shorn off – of which there is no photographic evidence (i.e. blood)? What about the fact that the equipment inside the ambulance seems to be perfectly orderly – of which there is photographic evidence?
These experts you rely on to make up your mind for you will undoubtedly be looking at all this photographic evidence so I suggest you do as well. you know, so you get some idea of what you’re talking about.
One more thing – Zombie didn’t exposit a ‘specific missile destruction model’ so that’s a very spurious argument.
S.Weasel is a lying, thieving troll who should be banned.
I know the works of the genuine “s.weasel” well, because he was a regular contributor to another blog (samizdata) where I was also once a regular. I beieve he is also a regular contributor to several US blogs, where I have seen him post from time to time.
There is no conceivable way that these latest posts are by the same person.
I suspect we can draw our own conclusions as to who this imposter might be – though I’m sure our hosts will be able to confirm it from his dotted quad.
Oh and thanks for the chart that measures missile range and altitude. You would think a supposed ‘comeback’ would involve, I don’t know, kinetic energy or soemthing else relevent to ‘proving’ your case.
‘Kinetic energy’ keep that in mind next time you search Google images for something to post. You utter fool.
Thank you, GCooper. A thing like this, it nearly makes one lose one’s faith in weasels, it does.
The Happy Rampager:
You are missing the point. The point is that some form of ordnance(thank you BB) hit the ambulance. Whether it was a missile or not is a topic for the experts. We have already seen AntiCitizenOne claim that air launched missiles cannot hit grounded vehicles on the roof. This is not true.
The IDF admitted it carried out an “ariel attack” on the reuters vehicle – the damage to that and the ambulance look very similar. How do you explain that ?
The hole is the ventilation cover no one claimed it was where a missle struck.
Take a look at http://israelreporter.com/2005/07/
There is an image cycled at the top left, with the text “Car Occupants Killed by Missile in Acco, Israel”. The picture can be seen more clearly here on flickr.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/white-flags-fail-to-protect-families-obeying-order-to-flee-thesouth/2006/07/23/1153593216876.html
Another vehicle intact that was hit by
a “precision guided missile” fired from an attack helicopter.
The truth will out.
OI! You! It is EXTREMELY bad form to nick a username. I’m willing to call it coincidence and let it go, but PICK ANOTHER, please.
Especially if you’re going to continue posting in this vein.
“are you an expert on all air launched ordinance?” So what’s your expertise?
Which missile was it that did the imposible damage?
What height was it launched from?
Why did it hit that point?
What did it enter at that angle?
You can make claims about shooting ambulances with your invisible zionist rust missiles all day, but only in your left wing barrel!
The original and real “S. Weasel”. What a suprise, the left alternate between lying. sockpuppetting and being impostors.
No-one who reads blogs will ever trust the left ever again!
“The truth will out.
S.Weasel “
We already know you are an impostor and a liar.
“The hole is the ventilation cover no one claimed it was where a missle struck.”: Backtracking! So where is the invisible zionist rust missiles entry hole?
After an endless stream of “anons”, “Anonymouses”, and trolls of every description we now have identity thieves. Perhaps its time for the blog owners to consider some form of registration?
AntiCitizenOne writes:
“We already know you are an impostor and a liar.”
Still, looking on the bright side, any casual reader who might have been tempted to take even a grain of what he said as anything other than rank effluent, will now know he is cracked.
I think that really does say something about the rabid anti-semitic Left, too.
Biodegradable writes:
“After an endless stream of “anons”, “Anonymouses”, and trolls of every description we now have identity thieves. Perhaps its time for the blog owners to consider some form of registration?”
I can understand the sentiment though, personally, I never register with blogs and I doubt I ever will.
In this case, it would be easy enough just to ban the offending address.
“The hole is the ventilation cover no one claimed it was where a missle struck.”
The original reports stated clearly that those damn Jews had the gall to hit the ambulance smack bang right in the centre of the red cross with their devilishly accurate laser guided missiles!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5224472.stm
Two ambulances this week were hit within minutes of each other, one rocket hitting the Red Cross like a bullseye, witnesses said.
“witnesses said”
The point is that some form of ordnance(thank you BB) hit the ambulance.
Only if you count the hammer that was presumably used to remove the dome as ‘ordnance’.
the damage to that and the ambulance look very similar. How do you explain that
How do you explain the fact that the marks on the Reuters vehicle don’t even look like missile hits?
The hole is the ventilation cover no one claimed it was where a missle struck.
Actually, most of the news reports about the so-called incident claimed just that. Maybe ‘the IDF aimed directly at the centre of the cross’ rings a bell with you.
Take a look at…an image cycled at the top left, with the text “Car Occupants Killed by Missile in Acco, Israel”. The picture can be seen more clearly here on flickr.
You can’t even provide a proper link to evidence that you rely on to support your lunatic claims.
Another vehicle intact that was hit by a “precision guided missile” fired from an attack helicopter.
First thing you notice is a hell of a lot of smoke, which indicates fire…there was no evidence of fire inside the ambulance. So you have actually provided evidence that supports those you are arguing against instead of yourself. Very well done.
GCooper
I am registered at a couple of blogs (under different names) and would happily register here, but I take your point.
In this case, it would be easy enough just to ban the offending address
Make it so! :+:
I say NO to banning this lefty liar and impostor! I want everyone who comes to this site to be sure that YOU CAN NEVER TRUST ANYTHING THE LEFT CLAIMS.
The Happy Rampager,
the Impostor also implies via this link
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hellfire-trajectory1.gif
that the missile that struck the car was a Hellfire missile.
Manufacturer: Rockwell, Martin Marietta
Missile: 99 lb (45kg)
Warhead: 20 lbs (9kg)
impact-fused Firestone shaped-charge high-explosive
Length: 5.3 ft (1,61m)
Diameter: 7 in (17,8cm)
Wingspan: 1.1 ft (33,5cm)
Guidance: semi-active laser homing
Propulsion: Thiokol TX-657 reduced-smoke solid-fuel rocket
Speed: Mach 1.1 (1313km/h)
Range: approx. 5 miles
So This guy expects us to beleive a 45KG missile hit the ambulance at mach 1.1 and managed to ONLY dent the roof?
This impostor is an imbecile.
“You only have to look at the past month’s stream of special pleading to see that this is just another boring axegrinding Zionist site for Jews who are stricken with guilt because Israel is a busted flush and they’re secretly glad they’re living in safety among us evil antisemites.”
ROFLMAO!
This wins the much-coveted ‘Flame of the Month’ award.
My enemies’ enemy is not allways my friend.
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August1191.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
The Happy Rampager | 30.08.06 – 5:36 pm
“NO ONE who claims expertise or any knowledge of munitions has supported the claim that a missile struck either the ambulance or the Reuters vehicle.”
….er….the IDF have acknowledged attacking the Reuters vehicle.
Some experts have weighed in on the ambulance/reuters stories. Among suggestions they’ve made are: missile with HE removed and concrete put in……….and… “The AGM-114M Hellfire is a recent variant that, unlike earlier models, is not designed to penetrate armor. If the van had been hit with an anti-armor variant, the van would have been toast. Although a van like that does have decent armor, it’s nothing compared to a tank, which is what the Hellfire is designed to destroy. If you do a search on youtube for “hellfire missile”, you’ll see what I mean. With the new war on terror, the “M” variant was developed to attack “soft” targets like personnel in the open and unarmored vehicles. It’s designed to do blast and fragmentation damage.”
Then there’s the 70mm rocket theory……..
And a non-specific claim that almost any airburst munition could have blown the red ventilator off and caused light damage/dents/scarring to the roof. Doesn’t this seem MOST LIKELY?
Re RUST:
“There’s been a lot of talk about rust, including comments on several blogs about the Reuters van. Let me assure you that it doesn’t take visible surface rust very long to form in the Lebanese climate. If you look up the weather data for Lebanon for the past few days, you’ll see it’s been hot with 70 – 80% humidity. In that environment, rust can form very fast. This is especially true with metal exposed through battle damage. The missile explosion, or whatever, not only strips off the paint, but also the factory-applied galvanization designed to inhibit rust. With no protection in a hot humid environment, rust can and does form pretty fast • within a day or two easily. Overnight under ideal conditions. If you look at the first video of the van, you don’t see rust, but pictures taken a day or maybe two later show lots of rust.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/29/reuters-van-attack-70mm-unguided-rocket/
AntiitizenOne thanks for your 18.37 post,saved me from having a bash.
Mr Reith wrote;
“The AGM-114M Hellfire is a recent variant that, unlike earlier models, is not designed to penetrate armor. If the van had been hit with an anti-armor variant, the van would have been toast.
Actually Mr Reith the Hellfire-114M is designed to penetrate armour. Just not the armour on a tank but rather the sides of a ship and then detonate inside it.
LOL
John Reith: 0 pounce: 1
Also from my very brief google search it would seem that the Hellfire-114M is a surface launched system.
n’est pas?
John Reith
It’s good that you care enough to acknowledge that there’s a case to answer on this.
So cut to the chase: on the balance of the evidence you’ve seen, what do you think happened?
Just as an addendum, I’m pretty sure the Reuter’s van was armoured, so claiming the van shows the same level of damage as the (unarmoured) ambulance rather makes the point that the ambulance does appear to have got off lightly.
‘Some experts have weighed in on the ambulance/reuters stories. Among suggestions they’ve made are: missile with HE removed and concrete put in……….and…’
So we have gone from faked evidence to suggestions. What next asking a ten year old to write a story about in involving dragons?
If doubts are raised about a news story a broadcaster should present them to the public and let them make up their own minds not try and bolster one side’s claims.
You would think showing that the Lebanese Red Cross was telling lies would be a better story than the IDF replaced the explosives with candyfloss.
John Reith
As an occasional non-posting unaffiliated lurker on this forum -your comments on rust indicate you should try and keep away from technical areas.
I’m an engineer by profession and I spend half the year in a small mediterranean island with summer temperatures of 30C+ and relative humidity often in the 80/90%’s.
One of the island’s few claims to fame is the huge number of old Brit cars from the 50’s & 60’s which are still running around long after their brethren in the UK have rusted to dust.
I can often leave untreated mild steel tools & gardening equipment lying around outside for weeks in the summer with no sign of rust.
If there’s a shower or a heavy morning dew you might see a thin film of rust after a few days – if you look very closely.
I used to restore old cars for a hobby and the degree of rusting on the roof of that ambulance would indicate to me that it had been lying in a scrapyard somewhere for six to twelve months minimum in an averaqe European climate – probably a year ot two in Lebanon.
I think your claim therefore sounds a bit desparate.
John and the other BBC trolls are here for one reason, and one reason only…..
Biased BBC is hitting the target, and they are scared…….
They are losing listeners and viewers in the millions…and they just can;t accept it is becasue they are garbage, and nobody wants their propaganda and chav reality shows…when they can use the Internet to watch what they want, when they want…without having to fork over the BBC Licence Tax…..
They are scared…but rather than reform themselves, they just “wish it would all go away”….
It will.. 🙂 The BBC is obsolete…..
Reith – I lived in lebanon for years. Inland the climate is dry and the temperature is variable.
Being now only an occasional visitor who happens to own a house there, what I find most remarkable is how I don’t have to touch up the paint nearly as often as I do here in evil AmeriKKKur where we have heavy rains, and this thing called winter.
BECAUSE I SEE CONSIDERABLY LESS RUST. The proof is in the number of paint cans that have dried out before I’ve had a chance to use them.
Plus, if you managed to find a way to oxidize galvanized sheet steel in 48 hours, you’d become a engineering genius and a millionaire, and wouldn’t be wasting your time with a bunch of drips who work for Reuters.