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.
“If such negotiations took place – there must have been a reason for them.”
Antoine Bieler of the ICRC was responding to information given to him by Red Cross peronnel on the ground. He doesn’t have a clue what happened to that ambulance. He doesn’t have clue if it was a real hit or a hoax.
.
BioD & PJF
I don’t see why you find it so hard to believe that the IDF might have hit these two ambulances on that particular day.
The previous week they’d hit the local hospital!
“the Jabel Amel hospital was struck early on Sunday morning by a missile that demolished an entire wing and killed a family of nine.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2274521,00.html
Then there was a much more dramatic ambulance story at Aitaroun:
“a helicopter attacked an ambulance that had just pulled up outside a house in the village of Aitaroun, next door to where a Sydney family had been holidaying. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
That one was much more dramatic than the Qana story…..the crew actually died. If it was emotive headlines the LRC staff were after, they’d have been better advised to tow the wreck of that ambulance to Tyre and parade grieving colleagues for the world’s media than to try to fake some story where the worst that happened was a bloke lost a leg and the driver cut his chin.
The IDF have said that they hit more than 35 vehicles on the day the ambulances are reported to have been struck. (see IDF website)
One of them contained the Sarour family.
“Mahmoud Sarour, 14, was admitted to the hospital yesterday and treated for phosphorous burns to his face,” Najem said. Mahmoud’s 8-month-old sister, Maryam, suffered similar burns on her neck and hands when an Israeli rocket hit the family car.
The children were with their father, mother and other relatives when the car was hit by an Israeli missile. The father died instantly.”
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/07/24/ap2900674.html
Another one contained the Jawad family.
“Dirty bandages hid the worst of 8-year-old Zainab Jawad’s swollen, bloodied nose Monday. Her arm was strapped to her chest and fractured in two places.
Stretched out on a bed a Najem Hospital, Zainab squeezed shut her brown eyes as memories of the attack flooded back, some of her words muffled as she fought sobs.
A day earlier, Israeli bombs destroyed her family’s home in the southern village of Ayta Chaeb. Then rockets slammed into the car as they fled.”
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/07/24/ap2900674.html
Seems like that day was not a good one for civilians to be on a road in southern Lebanon.
John Reith
I don’t see why you find it so hard to believe that the IDF might have hit these two ambulances on that particular day.
Duh! Maybe it’s because Biodegradable, PJF and others aren’t utterly credulous fools. Maybe it’s because photographs of the ambulance show damage which is just not of the order caused by a hellfire missile, mortsr round or just about any other kind of ordnance. Maybe it’s because of the clear rust on the ambulance roof but not on the clear flange, with screw holes, where the beacon just happened to have been. Maybe it’s because of the windscreen, which happened to have been blown in and not out. Maybe it’s the absence of damage in the ambulance. Maybe it’s because of Mohammed Dura, Jenin, an ‘attack’ on a Gazan beach and thousands of other lies told against the Israelis.
John Reith, you are a cretin. No, I’m not being offensive, because a cretin is what you are. You either believe that the IDF hit that ambulance, or you don’t yet you believe you can get away with your lies in here. Either way, it makes you a cretin.
Pete_London,
Until John Reith (who’s beginning to troll with his evasions) can tell us
a) What Israeli Ordnance hit the Ambulances?
b) Why the Chulov stories differ when he says they back up his claims?
there’s no point in discussing anything with him.
AntiCitizenOne
I agree, so I’ll drop it with him. I aksed him to explain the discrepancies between Chulov’s two pieces, and I’m still waiting. John Reith did start by defending the view that a hellfire missile filled with concrete caused the damage. He then went on to state that (in his opinion) air burst ordnance was used, knocking off the beacon in the process. He finished off by defending one of Chulov’s pieces (which one? I dunno!) which quoted one of those famously impartial Lebanese eyewitnesses as saying that a missile fired from a drone was the cause.
So yes, he’s not worth one single breath of debate, but I had to respond to the line at Biodegradable and PJF: I don’t see why you find it so hard to believe that the IDF might have hit these two ambulances on that particular day.
Chutzpah!
It seems that for many, many (too many) peoplet, including many to be found on this thread, the ‘fact’ that Israel attacked ambulances. press cars etc. etc. has become an act of faith equivalent to a religious belief.
It doesn’t matter how much evidence they are given to the contrary, their ‘belief’ outweighs the facts.
There lies their un-objectivity,(?) and there you find their basic anti-semitism. No matter what the evidence which they can see with their own eyes, they still ‘know’ in their heart of hearts, that Israel did it.
They can protest their non racism, (it’s not the Jews, it’s the Israelis nonsense), but they reveal themselves by the way they continue to deliberately evade the relevant questions.
The BBC is complicit in encouraging this agenda, and they will bear the blame if the results ultimately become devastating, both for Jews in the UK and in Israel.
John Reith,
Now you seem to be saying the IDF SHOULD shoot-up ambulances.
That’s a real leap, even for you. I was referring to the spin Little put on the report of an ambulance that was apparently shot up and the driver killed or wounded. We don’t know, because Little can’t or wont tell us what happened. Which incident is he referring to? Who knows. But there are certainly no incdents in which the IDF says to itself, “Great, there’s an ambulance, let’s shoot it up.”
Little deliberately avoids context here in order to maximise his anti-Israel spin on the story. I would have thought that was obvious.
C’mon John Reith, don’t pretend to be obtuse. We both know you are bright enough to have comprehended my post.
Pete & AntiCitizenOne
1. I do not know (and nor do you) what kind of ordnance (if any) struck the ambulance.
Various people on other blogs have made suggestions of varying degrees of plausibility.
Unlike zombietime (who has spent the war in Florida), Martin Chulov was actually in south Lebanon. He says the damage to the ambulance (which he saw next day) was consistent with damage to other vehicles that he has seen both in Lebanon and in Gaza which have been struck by missiles fired from drones.
I see no reason to disbelieve what he says about this.
He is a well-respected Australian journo with a track record of exposing Islamist extremists and Al Qaeda types. I think it most unlikely he’s in bed with Hezbollah.
Moreover, there are a number of reported instances of vehicles hit by Israeli missiles where not all the occupants are turned into toast. Here’s one about a minibus containing 19 people hit by an Israeli missile leaving only 3 dead:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1827422,00.html
The Reuters vehicle hit in Gaza is another case that may be instructive. We don’t know what kind of ordnance hit that • but it didn’t do much damage. The IDF have acknowledged hitting it in an ‘aerial attack’.
2. The discrepancies between Chulov 1 and Chulov 2 don’t strike me as being particularly out of the ordinary for a story that relies on a combination of eye-witness and official spokesman testimony.
Much of what now appears to be wrong or inaccurate in Chulov 1 appears to correspond to material published elsewhere and statements attributed to a bloke called Deebe who was the area manager of the LRC in Tyre and who briefed the press.
Chulov 2 , by contrast, shows all the signs of detailed cross-examination of the ambulance driver: “tell me exactly where you were standing when the explosion happened” stuff. This would be consistent with Chulov having gone back to re-examine the story in order to clear up queries raised about it. I would therefore put more weight on Chulov 2.
In my experience witnesses to an event rarely tell the same story. Details are always….or nearly always inconsistent. Sometimes it is baffling why this should be • in the sense that most often no agenda is being served by the variations. (Think back to the various inconsistencies in the stories told by witnesses to the Stockwell Station shooting….) In fact, it is much more suspicious when everyone’s account tallies perfectly. This is almost invariably a sign of collusion.
The most compelling parts of Chulov 2 are his examination of both LRC and IRC run sheets. Clearly an incident was logged at the time the event is said to have taken place. Clearly the ICRC had dealings with the IDF. All this suggests there WAS an incident of ambulances coming under fire.
The IDF have not denied that the alleged incident took place. Itself significant. The IDF HAVE DENIED that it is their policy to attack ambulances deliberately.
Given that the incident took place at 11.30 at night, it seems to me perfectly plausible that both drones and manned aircraft would have had limited visibility and may have relied on heat signatures from the vehicles for target identification and acquisition. Easy for a mistake to be made in those circumstances. Ditto the Reuters van in Gaza • hit at night.
Chulov also spoke to the man who lost a leg. D. Burbage on another thread says he has had an e-mail from Jim Muir confirming that he too interviewed that man.
When I first read the zombietime report, I though someone ought to go back to Tyre and check it out. Chulov has.
The points zombietimes raised have been largely answered:
• The ambulances are now confirmed (by both LRC HQ and ICRC) to have been genuine, not recovered from a scrapheap.
• They were tasked to be in Qana at the time stated.
• They did make a report that they’d come under fire.
• Negotiations did take place with the IDF to extract them.
• Chulov confirms no rust present on day after the incident.
• Mysterious patient now identified and interviewed (twice) confirms incident took place.
• Chulov claims damage he saw consistent with damage to other vehicles he’s seen in the area that have been attacked by drones. (Gaza Reuters van story appears consistent with this too.)
Then there are wider ‘plausibility’ factors supporting the case that the ambulances were attacked. The IDF had hit ambulances before • confirmed by ICRC Geneva. The IDF hit a number of cars and vans out on the roads that day (more than 35 according to their own news department).
Lastly, there are the ‘implausibility factors’ associated with a faking theory. I think it is unlikely that Bieler would knowingly co-operate with a scam. I think it is also unlikely that he’d be played for a sucker by local staff. He’s had a month to satisfy himself that all was in order before making a statement to the media yesterday.
John Reith:
BioD & PJF
I don’t see why you find it so hard to believe that the IDF might have hit these two ambulances on that particular day.
I’ve already given two of the many very good reasons why. I’ve also given links to several documented cases of terrorists using Red Cross and UN ambulances to carry explosives and actually carry out terrorist operations. We all know, that includes you, how Pallywood works. This is another example.
I know why you have no trouble believing the Israelis did hit two ambulances: ITS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
The previous week they’d hit the local hospital!
So you’re more than happy to believe the worse of Israel!
And the Lebanese claimed 50 people died in one attack then corrected it to ONE person dead!
It was claimed that 54 died at Qana, “mostly children”, that has since been corrected to 28!
I think it is unlikely that Bieler would knowingly co-operate with a scam.
Screw Bieler, whoever he is, he’s irrelevant!
You probably haven’t read Melanie Phillips lately:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1321
An interesting take on the Lebanon war from an IDF captain:
This was perhaps both the most cynical and barbaric disregard for innocent civilian lives of all of Hezballah’s and Iran’s strategic choices. It was also the most successful. It was predicated not on its knowledge of its enemy (Israel) but its true genius lay in its knowledge of the press. The calculus was simple: launch a rocket from within a civilian population; if you kill Jews that’s a victory. If the Jews hit back and in so doing kill Lebanese civilians, that’s a victory. If they don’t hit back because they’re afraid to hit civilians, that’s a victory. Now repeat the process until you kill so many Jews they have to hit back and in so doing kill more Lebanese civilians. That’s the ultimate victory, because they know that in striking just those chords exactly what music the press will play. The awful truth, which the Western Press was manipulated to ignore or downplay, was that Iran, through its terrorist operational arm Hezballah, had invaded Lebanon from within. Hezballah did not protect Lebanon, they occupied it and they used those Hezballah occupied territories to launch Iran’s offensive in response to the West’s ultimatum to cease development of nuclear weapons.
Reith, you are a willing fool and a useful idiot!
International Committee of the Red Cross is Covering Up Evidence
Aussie Media Circles the Wagons Around the Red Cross Ambulance
Bryan & BioD
I do not dispute that Palestinian Red Crescent vehicles have been used to transport terrorists or even bombs.
But since the Palestinian Red Crescent was not a member of the international federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies until June this year (they joined on the same day as the Magen David Adom), I can’t see that anything done by the PRC before June this year in any way brings discredit on the ICRC.
The relevance – Bio D – that escapes you is simply this:
you and others have given credence on this site to grotesque conspiracy theories that posit that a senior official of the ICRC together with a Christian manager of the LRC (and since yesterday….an Australian journalist for one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers + his photographer) have colluded with Hezbollah spin-doctors and local ambulancemen to perpetrate a fraud on the world’s TV viewers and newspaper readers.
I say that’s nuts. Do you personally subscribe to that view?
But it isn’t the only grotesque conspiracy theory that people here have aired.
It has also been alleged here that the IDF did not bomb the building in Qana where 28 died but that bodies were brought from a refridgerated van at Tyre hospital and planted in the rubble of a building which was then dynamited by Hezbollah as a prelude to digging the bodies up for the purposes of parading them before the media.
I think that’s nuts too.
Do you subscribe to that?
The IDF Captain you quote sets out very well the dilemma the IDF found themselves in.
On the other hand, if Hezbollah really believed that by cynically firing from within civilian areas, they would escape counter-fire….they were quickly disabused of this.
The 15,000 …or 25,000 (depends who you read) destroyed civilian dwellings and the 1,000 or so Lebanese dead attest to the fact that the proximity of civilain lives/property to Hezb missile position was no shield at all.
Bryan – you are quite wrong about Allan Little. He’s not biased. I’ll listen to the programme and get back to you.
No doubt the Red Cross has done much courageous, vital work in the field worldwide over the years, but its bureaucrats are a craven bunch. Note how they denied Israel membership of the organisation over the decades, eventually grudgingly accepting her only under the meaningless ‘red diamond’ symbol.
Why? Well, obviously the Red Cross was bowing to the demand of the Red Crescent that Israel not be admitted.
Now John Reith really expects us to believe that one of these selfsame bureaucrats is even-handed in his attitude towards the crescent and the star.
Tell us another one.
But since the Palestinian Red Crescent was not a member of the international federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies until June this year (they joined on the same day as the Magen David Adom), I can’t see that anything done by the PRC before June this year in any way brings discredit on the ICRC.
The Palestinian Red Cresent was brought into the fold because it basically blackmailed the ICRC over admitting Israel’s MADA, but the mere fact that it was granted membership does the ICRC no credit at all. Are you really saying that there are no basic standards one has to uphold before one is granted membership of this august body?
Bryan – you are quite wrong about Allan Little. He’s not biased.
I’ve been aware of BBC bias and have been sporadically combatting it for a long time, and Alan Little’s bias comes across as powerfully as any I’ve encountered.
How about addressing the points I raised rather than coming up with a general dismissive comment?
I’ll listen to the programme and get back to you.
I’ll look forward to that.
Bryan
I don’t think you are giving the whole picture on the ICRC. It wasn’t so much, it seems, a question of craven bureaucrats:
“The Magen David Adom (MDA) meets all the criteria for membership of the ICRC, but has not been allowed to join because, ostensibly, it does not use the Red Cross or Red Crescent as its symbol. Given that these are the symbols of other faiths which have frequently persecuted Jews, surely the Magen David’s Adom’s refusal to adopt either symbol is completely understandable, but the ICRC has refused to find a way around the impasse essentially because of politics — Arab and Muslim member organisations, at the instigation of their governments, have been keen to block the admittance of the Israeli humanitarian organisation. ”
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/2612/scribb2612.html
That notion of Israelis regarding a cross as a symbol of a religion that frequently persecuted Jews strangely echoes your question about whether the Islamist terrorists in the Little report attributed a religious significance to a colour-reverse of the Swiss flag……
Would you object to a Red Cross symbol being used in Israel?
John Reith “I think it is unlikely that Bieler would knowingly co-operate with a scam.”
Why not? Similar Mercedes driving Red Cross big cheeses conspired with the French to maintain a transit camp for illegal migrants at Sangatte.
John Reith:
Bryan & BioD
I do not dispute that Palestinian Red Crescent vehicles have been used to transport terrorists or even bombs.
Good, because I don’t dispute that the IDF have carried out raids on hospitals both in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon where they had good reason to believe that terrorists were hiding themselves and weapons.
But on the basis of those justified raids you seem willing to believe a hoax, while I, on the basis of past terrorist form, am inclined to believe the incident was a hoax.
you and others have given credence on this site to grotesque conspiracy theories…
I say that’s nuts. Do you personally subscribe to that view?
No, I do not subscribe to any “conspiracy theory”. I am not suggesting any of those people you mention are working in cahoots with each other á la Grande Zionist Conspiracy™, they may well have said what they said in all good faith. I am saying that even taking it all together, specially taking it all together, I am not convinced.
It has also been alleged here that the IDF did not bomb the building in Qana where 28 died but that bodies were brought from a refridgerated van at Tyre hospital and planted in the rubble of a building which was then dynamited by Hezbollah as a prelude to digging the bodies up for the purposes of parading them before the media.
I think that’s nuts too.
Do you subscribe to that?
Let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised. I have seen IDF video (on youtube) of missiles being fired from that building. I wouldn’t deny the IAF targetted that building, but I wouldn’t put it past Hezbollah to abuse the dead for their PR purposes. We’ve seen too much of “Green Helmet Guy” and the NYT photo of the dead guy who it later turned out was “injured” after being seen running around on a bomb site to rule these things out.
I don’t neccesarily believe there’s a “conspiracy” but I do believe that the BBC and the MSM in general are too eager (and I use the word advisedly) to accept the Hezbollywood version.
The 15,000 …or 25,000 (depends who you read) destroyed civilian dwellings and the 1,000 or so Lebanese dead attest …
There you go with that magic figure of 1,000!
Has that been verified and if so by whom? How many of those were armed when killed, if not in uniform (its a war crime to be armed and not in uniform – see the Geneva Convention)?
And I forgot to mention in reply to your previous list of injured in Israeli attacks – the IDF dropped millions of pamphlets warning those civilians to get out of the area, and warned they would attack ANY vehicle they deemed to be suspicious or a threat.
And please John Reith, let’s not drag in any more distractions like Red Crosses, Crescents, Diamonds and the like.
We give reith a lot of leeway to say whatever he wants about us on our blog.
How about reith’s organisation giving us the right to say what we want to say about them on their media?
That notion of Israelis regarding a cross as a symbol of a religion that frequently persecuted Jews strangely echoes your question about whether the Islamist terrorists in the Little report attributed a religious significance to a colour-reverse of the Swiss flag……
True but that is tangential to the debate. And Israel isn’t about to blow up Red Cross headquarters. And re objecting to a Red Cross symbol being used in Israel, the question is absurd. Obviously I would only object if it excluded MADA’s symbol. Israel is arguably the most tolerant country on earth when it comes to others’ symbols, religious or otherwise. So your attempt to draw a moral equivalence here between Israeli attitudes and the attitudes prevalent in Muslim countries which oppress Christians and impose the death penalty for apostasy is going to fall very flat indeed.
It’s clear that the Red Cross bowed to its Red Crescent masters over the issue of Israel’s admittance to the organisation. Such dhimmitude is echoed throughout the Western world. And if that’s not craven, I don’t know what is.
When it comes to a dispute between the Crescent and the Star, you’ll excuse me if I take the supposed impartiality of a senior bureaucrat of the ICRC with a very large pinch of salt.
What stand does the BBC take on this issue? Judging by Little, and other BBC sources I accessed at the time, it certainly isn’t impartial. And anyone who thinks it stands with Israel is living on another planet.
The confirmation bias
Researchers discovered that when people hear an argument that opposes a dearly held viewpoint, the rational part of their brain takes a coffee break and the emotional side takes over. The irrational part of their brain then reinterprets reality in a way that lets them keep their dumb viewpoint against all common sense and evidence.
For example, if you and I had an argument about whether creatures could fly by flapping their wings, common sense would tell you that pointing to birds flying overhead would end the debate. But it wouldn’t. Whoever held the opinion that creatures can’t fly by flapping wings would argue that birds aren’t actually creatures, or that it’s the feathers that let them fly, not just the wings, or that humans can’t flap their arms and fly. In other words, the loser of the debate would start saying stuff that sounds incredibly stupid to everyone except the person saying it.
That’s the confirmation bias at work.
Sound like anyone we all know ??
(Many thanks to Scott Adams)
biodegradable wrote-
the IDF dropped millions of pamphlets warning those civilians to get out of the area, and warned they would attack ANY vehicle they deemed to be suspicious or a threat.
and in how many cases when the civilians took the hint and got into their cars, did the IDF declare their vehicles suspicious and…….ka…boom?
biodegradable also wrote:
It was claimed that 54 died at Qana, “mostly children”, that has since been corrected to 28!
so 28 is okay is it?
shame on you.
biodegradable also wrote:
It was claimed that 54 died at Qana, “mostly children”, that has since been corrected to 28!
so 28 is okay is it?
I didn’t say it was OK. I said 54 is not 28, just as in the other case I quoted 1 is not 50.
shame on you.
dov | 01.09.06 – 11:35 pm
Bollocks to you.
the IDF dropped millions of pamphlets warning those civilians to get out of the area, and warned they would attack ANY vehicle they deemed to be suspicious or a threat.
and in how many cases when the civilians took the hint and got into their cars, did the IDF declare their vehicles suspicious and…….ka…boom?
Point is, they were given advance warning to get out. And it’s interesting how the stories of vehicles containing non-combatants that were “targeted” are being exposed as lies – as in the case of the ambulance.
And in the case of Qana it’s looking more and more likely that the Israelis were not responsible for any of the deaths – whether 54 or 28. Didn’t you hear that a crater from the Israeli strike was found near the building and that the building collapsed seven to eight hours after the strike? Ever heard of a media-manipulating terrorist group called Hezbollah?
The shame is on you dov. Maybe you should apply for a job at the BBC. You’d do well there.
John Reith
You quote Chulov as saying…
“I was in Tyre on the night of the attack and investigated the incident closely the next day. On July 24, with photographer Stewart Innes…………We inspected both ambulances, whose mangled roofs were not rusting at the time.”
In a later post you yourself state:-
“Besides…..are you going to claim that his photographer Stewart Innes did NOT take pics which show the ambulance without rust?”
I for one would certainly revise my opinion of this incident if I saw pictures of the same ambulance before the rust “developed”.
Curiously I’ve searched your posts and Chulov’s articles for a link to the “rust free” pix but can’t find one.
Can you help?
The ambulance supposedly hit by an Israeli missile was in one piece after the ‘attack’ and yet a hospital wing was completely destroyed by another missile. Sounds a bit bizarre unless the ambulance was hit by a special Israeli anti-ambulance missile, and the hospital was hit by a special Israeli anti-hospital missile. Remember, you read this concoction here first.
Hat tip will via Tim Blair from ‘ambulances in danger’ thread below
Excellent resume of the Chulov report and its many inconsistencies.
http://theillusionofknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/08/australians-unfounded-faith-in-chulov.html
Oh dear dear dear. Although “john reith” does not need my sympathy he’s got it nevertheless. His major crutch in support of the non-bias of the BBC and MSM – the Chulov Report – has now been fisked to death.
Where does jr go now? I, for one, hope that he stays with us on B-BBC since part of exposing the irredeemable bias of the BBC is by responding to criticism (no matter how ill founded) from jr and others.
Seems the man who lost a leg has no surfaced.
He says we’ve all been looking at the wrong ambulance.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ambulance-attack-victims-anger-at-hoax-allegations/2006/09/01/1156817099100.html
same story in melbourne age:
“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.”
It appeared to have been hit by a weapon that punctured a huge hole through the back
Not good enough
Now Chulov’s story is that the ambulances were stationary when fired upon, and that Shalin wasn’t in his ambulance at all, but at the back having just loaded the patients. .. In the original article Chulov claimed that Mr Shalin was spared from serious injury by a “driver’s canopy that protected him from a direct hit”. But a quick look at the photographs don’t show a “canopy” or indeed much at all separating the driver from the rear of the ambulance … How then, did Shalin get away with just a scratch to his chin? Well, says Chulov, now that I think about it, he wasn’t actually in the ambulance. He was outside “lifting the rear ramp”, which conveniently helped protect him from the blast when the missile hit; hence, his light injuries
http://theillusionofknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/08/australians-unfounded-faith-in-chulov.html
Foxgoose | 02.09.06 – 9:39 am | #
Stewart Innes
Kuwait mobile phone (GSM): (+965) 922 8610
Kuwait Tel/Fax: (+965) 264 6183
Thuraya (satellite phone): 0088 216 7744 6245
E mail: stewart@stewartinnes.com
E mail: sjinnes@hotmail.com
http://www.stewartinnes.com/
and in how many cases when the civilians took the hint and got into their cars, did the IDF declare their vehicles suspicious and…….ka…boom?
and in how many cases when the civilians took the hint and got into their cars, did the IDF declare their vehicles suspicious and…….ka…boom?
dov | 01.09.06 – 11:35 pm |
For the record, Fisk has stated the number of times a car carrying civilians were directly hit by Israeli missiles is a total of Two. Other instances of casualties from cars flee south Lebanon were not directly hit, so we cannot actually acertain specificaly what the targets were.
it was claimed that 54 died at Qana, “mostly children”, that has since been corrected to 28!
so 28 is okay is it?
No 0 non-combatant deaths through out the conflict would have been most desirable.
Tell me Dov don’t you find it the least bit questionable that their were any people in the building when the IAF leafleted the area identifying that specific building as a target? Or that only women and children dies but no men? Or that 7 hours passed befor any rescue/recovery attempt was made?
Dov is one of those hit-and-run posters. He’s not here to debate or learn anything but just to get all self-righteous and indignant and let off some steam and then disappear with his nose in the air.
Talking to the dovs of this world is simply a waste of time and effort.
‘Dov’, ‘Yossi’, L’chaim’- doesn’t take a genius to work out this silly site’s agenda!
Glad to see the BBC ignores the existence of this alien wedge of cheapskates who object to paying just over two quid a week for the best broadcasting in the world.
Keep wanking into the wind, schnorrers.
Actually, I think a couple of the bloggers support the licence regime – it really is the bias they object to.
Me, I object to both. If it’s the best broadcasting in the world they shouldn’t have to force people to pay for it on pain of imprisonment. Gone soon enough, though…
.
Fencesitter, you realise at least one of those names you’ve just mentioned is a hit-and-run critic, don’t you? And the unsubtle attempt at hinting some sort of racial motive behind this site… lame really.
Anyway, I’m not cheapskate. I object to the principle of taxing a passive device. If the BBC wants people to pay for its services it should set up a subscription service or start advertising. This isn’t like BT charging for the use of phone-lines, or a toll on a motorway, you see; the television itself doesn’t do anything except receive, and it’s paid for out of your own pocket too. A phone line, on the other hand, is paid for by the telephone company and is part of a service provision.
Lets also not forget that this “measly” £2 per week is actually a fairly substantial sum for a lot of people. SIngle mothers, one of the BBC’s favourite victim groups, suffer the most under this punitive tax because a “mere” £2 per week is a small fortune for someone earning barely enough to support their family. What if they don’t even watch the BBC? Why should those people pay for something that they might not even be using, just for the priviledge of owning a television? Which, as I pointed out, isn’t intrinsically linked to the BBC in any real way…