Qana: Where were the men?
posted at 1:09 pm on August 1, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
MSNBC’s Richard Engel asks the question most MSMers have ignored: Where were Qana’s men when Israel attacked? Answer: Many were with Hezbollah.
That’s relevant, dontcha think?
Details and video at Media Blog.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The men were a) making bombs, b) detonating bombs, or c) getting bombed.
JammieWearingFool on August 1, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Well, to use the term men very loosely. I have a hard time thinking of them as actual men when they hide behind women and children instead of coming out for a fair fight.
Hell, even the French would have enough decency to simply surrender instead of deliberately putting women and children in harms way just to score propaganda points.
thirteen28 on August 1, 2006 at 1:21 PM
HERE THEY ARE:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284514,00.html
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Qana’s so-called men were at the morgue, collecting babies for the Western media display.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 1, 2006 at 1:43 PM
When he met in the last 2 days with Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez made the case for the entire world that the terrorists are not soldiers. He used a twisted argument, that the U.S. and Israel don’t have the courage to fight armies and soldiers (he even claimed that he is a soldier).
The media and us should take him, and his compadres, up on the offer. Real men fight against other real men, in uniforms, following the Geneva convention, and don’t hide amongst women, children, the elderly and the disabled.
Entelechy on August 1, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Like Gillerman said last night.Qana, Its a total set up.. all of it.
shooter on August 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Any religion or religious leader that would remotely give support to a strategy that allows innocent children to be targets, is not a religion. These muslim facists are simply PIGS. They deserve no respect or mercy. They simply need to be wiped off the face of the earth.
A message to the MSM, if you even utter the words “freedom fighters, resistance or insurgents”, you too are simply PIGS and have no moral grounding. You should also then be wiped off the face of the earth.
It is time to make a choice. Do you support freedom or oppression, democracy or dictators, morality or indescriminant killing. CNN, BBC, NY Times, it is time to step up to the plate and make a decision that does not involve Bush, Money or your own agenda. Which is it? Speak Up? Ask yourself..What would Edward R. Murrow do? ( I know I can’t ask you what would jesus do?)
But this is about the kind of world your grandchildren will live in. Do you want your legacy to be one that supported oppression? Do you REALLY believe that the US is the worst country in the world? Make a choice—Western Democracy or Islama-facism?
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
dallas94 on August 1, 2006 at 3:37 PM
It’s long been to the point that one can’t see the war for the propagandists. As long as it’s that bad, propaganda is the most important part of a war, because of its influence on the superpower. Everything connected to propaganda in the war against Islam should be preserved, catalogued, organized, and made available online in such a way that it can’t be overcome by distributed denial of service, vandalism, or any such thing.
A counterpropaganda site ought best to have a blog-like front page that maintains interest with continual updates. The blog front page should self-promote in terms of constantly drawing connections between the fraud du jour and the evidence and analyses of previous instances and campaigns of propaganda.
I can imagine a propaganda-wiki–necessarily with restricted editorship–with pages on
* particular news organizations
* individual reporters
* individual photographers
* particular events (eg, such as Qana 2006)
* particular reports (eg, each deceptive report of Qana)
* particular photographs and photo sets
* “expert” interview subjects
* handlers, especially recurrent ones (eg, “Orange Vest Guy” in 1996, 2006)
* the propaganda organizations of particular enemies
* each general technique of propagandistic deception
* the sources from which propagandists have learned their techniques
* techniques of detecting instances of propagandistic deception, according to kind
This would be a MEMRI-class undertaking (just to take one example). It could rely greatly on volunteer effort of the sort we already see active in the case of Qana, but it would probably do its best work with some paid staff, legal counsel, insurance, and perhaps means of maintaining secure anonymity.
Kralizec on August 1, 2006 at 4:04 PM
dallas94, thank you – you said it in such a crystal clear way; consider sending to all the editing rooms of the media biggies in the country, in the world. They should be faced with your bottom-line question, over and over, and made to decide, on camera.
Entelechy on August 1, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Comment pages: