Dan Riehl advises some elements in the blogosphere: “They are increasingly looking like the very drive by media against which we so often rant, running the risk of being exploited by propagandists on another side of an issue.” He’s particularly……

TD, what is your concept for how terrorists, suspects, and illegal combatants should be handled? Seems to me that any country that is under relentless terrorist attack absolutely needs a place to keep bad guys and suspected bad guys (unless you want to go with the “who needs detainees, just kill them all” option).

As for Gitmo, these guys are not criminals, and they are not prisoners of war, so detention is both necessary, just and appropriate.

Just about everyone I have had read on this subject has some good points, but I haven’t seen any that ring COMPLETELY true based on my personal experiences with this sort of thing. Yeah, sure I can come up with a Rube-Goldbergian scenario that could account for all the reported details, but the chain of events to fit them ALL is so unlikely as to be on the verge of impossible.

The sad thing is that Reuters has such a proven history of sympathyzing with terrorists and a long held anti-Israel bias that we have any reason to debunk their reportage.

And one last thing: if the IDF REALLY did target the vehicle, why the heck didn’t they follow up with a 20mm gun or a 50 or 30 cal as the supposed terrorists scattered after it was hit by whatever? Why just do a ‘drive by’??? That just isn’t their style.

Secondly, I’ve seen the destroyed vehicles from the Vent piece you linked. There’s a big difference here. First of all, those vehicles were completely unarmored. Secondly, the weapon used against those vehicles was almost certainly a laser-guided hellfire missile, which has a warhead twice the weight of the 70mm rocket. So those were weaker targets hit by much more powerful missiles. This picture shows an Apache with rocket pods and hellfire loaded for comparison. Here’s a picture showing how big a 70mm rocket is. Not too big.

The armor on the Reuters vehicle is comparable to a Hummer. Both with stop 7.62 plus provide decent blast protection.

I’ve also seen what happens when ordnance explodes, the fragmentation is not always in neat little pieces, often there are very large chunks of metal flying at very high velocities. There is also the problem of ’secondary fragmentation’ – basically stuff from the site of the blast also being propelled by the explosion. Either of these things could account for the damage seen. Both of these are more plausible for the level of damage than a direct hit with some sort of “limited damage” weapons system.

The possiblity of a direct hit just seems too remote.

Admittedly no expert, but I’d have to lean in the shrapnel direction. Wouldn’t an explosive missile of some kind have caused a lot more damage and blown out windows, etc.? Not to mention the fact that I think Israel would have used something that could do real damage if that was their intention.

That is precisely the reason that their claims were questioned, because the initial claim – that IDF was targeting journalists (and ambulances) – was not consistent with the damage on the vehicles (which should have been destroyed by a direct hit).

Since the difference (like several others have said) between a direct hit, and shrapnel damage is the difference between some serious charges (deliberately targeting non-combatants) and simply accidental damage (reporters too close to the target of the attack)

I have to agree with georgej on this one. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me! I will continue to examine these claims with a jaundiced eye.

Now, the roof on that van is designed to stop a high-velocity 7.62 round from a 68 degree angle from 30meters away. There is no way that a piece of shrapnel from a 2.75″ rocket fired some distance away would make that kind of a hole…with frag damage…in the top of the vehicle…and damage the interior of the van. Only with a direct hit could that happen.

The other theory is that a piece of building fell on the vehicle. If this happened, then how does that explain the damage to the interior of the vehicle? How does that explain the fragmentation damage to other parts of the roof? Or the shrapnel pits and cracking in the thick laminated windshield? And that stuff that looks like dirt is undoubtedly “flash rust” (Google it). If you look at the video of the van, there isn’t any of that dirt or rust – you see bare metal.

I just don’t see that either of these theories have much weight.

Update: Could it have been shrapnel? See here.

Admittedly no expert, but I’d have to lean in the shrapnel direction. Wouldn’t an explosive missile of some kind have caused a lot more damage and blown out windows, etc.? Not to mention the fact that I think Israel would have used something that could do real damage if that was their intention.

So what if an Israeli claims that a “Camp 1391″ exists?

Michael Isikof is an American and he claimed in Newsweek that Korans were being flushed down the toilets at Gitmo. That was proven to be false. Sen. Dick Durbin, also an American, slandered EVERY American military man and woman with his exaggerated claims.

Or do you really believe that hidden behind Gitmo is a pile of bones like those found in Cambodia?

My point is that the media has pissed away their credibility. I see no difference between this story about a prison camp and stories that (1) the IAF blew up ambulances, (2) the IAF blew up a press van, (3) the IAF killed a bunch of children at Qana, (4) the IAF keeps blowing up the same woman’s lebanon homes over and over again and (5) the amazing “green helmet” guy.

I see little difference between this story and “babies being raped in the superdome” a year ago, as well.

We can choose to be skeptical (as I am doing) about stories in the media, or we chose to believe them at face value.

All I know for certain is that the MSM is working diligently to manipulate my opinion to support an agenda. Otherwise why fake photos and falsely report stories? Everything the media does is now suspect.

What would it take to say “yeah, this happened how they say it did”? Or is that option simply no longer on the table when it comes to Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon (and Syria, Iran, etc.)?

“Option” is not the same as “high probability”. You’re way off the map here.

Of course it’s shrapnel.

I should point out to you sir (georgej) that I neither proud of or support maintaining Guantanamo as a prison.

Me too. We should put them all on a flight home. And then toss them out of the plane halfway there.

AFGHANISTAN OUT OF CUBA!!!

Corroborative testimony by several Palestinian bystanders is dismissed out of hand…

Ahem.

Gaza (dpa) – Five Palestinians including a Reuters Television cameraman and another photographer for Dubai Television were wounded before dawn Sunday by rocket fire from Israeli aircraft, witnesses and medics said.

Shrapnel from two missiles struck two cars including a Reuters’ vehicle.

Palestinian security sources and eyewitnesses said that several Israeli army tanks and armoured vehicles rolled into eastern Gaza City, backed by Israeli helicopters and reconnaissance drones.

The eyewitnesses said that the two camera operators were in a Reuters jeep heading to the area to cover the Israeli Army incursion into eastern Gaza City. They said that an Israeli helicopter fired two missiles at people gathering in the Sheja’eya neighbourhood in eastern Gaza City as the Reuters’ car drove past nearby.

Shrapnel hit the car, wounding Faddel Shana’a of Reuters and Sabah Hemeida, who works for Dubai Television.

Palestinian medics in Shiffa Hospital in Gaza City reported that both were in moderate condition.

Three other Palestinian civilians were hit by shrapnel and moderately wounded.

There was no immediate comment by the Israeli Army on the incident.

Shall we accept or dismiss this?

OT: Centanni and Wiig are home and will make their first appearance on (cringe) Greta Van Susteren’s show tonight.

Feels like another Monday. Some days there just ain’t enough coffee. I put a lot of time, and a lot of me, into those last two posts last night. Sitting here with Still in Saigon doing an endless loop in…

I see AP’s point not to see every questionable picture as part of some grand conspiracy—we don’t want to sound like moonbats—but some of this is just ridiculous…like a missile strike right in the exact center of the Red Cross on the ambulance. Most of these are rightly being questioned in my opinion.

I will assume that every reported IDF errant missile strike on a press van/ambulance, whatever, is false reporting or part of an agenda.

I will believe the press and ambulances got blown up when they actually look blown up, not compeltely intact with little holes torn in the roof.

Lets talk about the moral equivalence of camp 1391. Are you willing to defend that from a moral standpoint, or will you agree with me, as an american, that this is indefensible?

I’ll do neither until it is proven that Camp 1391 exists as described in the article. The credibility of this article went to zero the instant I read the term “Israel’s Guantanamo” — tossed in, I am sure, to gratuitiously smearing America as well as Isreal.

Korans flushed down the toilets by guards, along with US troops being Nazi death camp guards, running Gulags and acting just like Pol Pot’s executioners for daring to dial down the air conditioning. Remember?

Please.

And let me get another thing straight. Reuters say they were hit by the IDF. People question the story. The New York Times publishes a photo of the Purrfect Angelz with an odd feature. People question the photo’s authenticity. Those are debunked. Reuters still say they were hit by the IDF. People question the story. So what exactly is the correlation between those two stories? More specifically, how does the scrutiny in either case affect the other? I don’t get it.

It is easy to jump to conclusions and think that every photo/story from the MSM is propaganda, and therefore post away, accusing all photographers/journalists of wrongdoing.

It is also easy to view new possible examples with extreme skepticism and dismiss accusations unless a very high level of proof is obtained.

Seldom is an example such as the photoshopped smoke one that immediately provides pretty clear evidence of chicanery. But once a clear pattern is established, as I believe it has, I think it is only proper–and not unnatural–to begin questioning what the MSM does on a regular basis. This is not a conspiracy theory. If it was, then suspicion of liberal bias in the MSM would make everyone on the right a conspiracy theorist.

Anyway, journalism–which all bloggers engage in to some extent–dictates the examining of evidence and reporting of findings. This would include positing potential examples of photoshopping–and the “editorial” process consisting of other bloggers substantiating, dissenting, and on the very basic level, discussing such possibilities. Since most bloggers, even those on group blogs, do not have “editors” in the normal sense, posting or emailing suggestions becomes the only way of disseminating possible fakes.

Allah and Ace’s caution not to jump to conclusions is not an example of extreme skepticism alluded to above. Rather, it is one that takes into account the role blogs and bloggers play in fact checking. The Drudge example of the missing mic cord makes bloggers look like tabloid reporters. If there is suspicion, then certainly make it known to others you might see as experts, or who with bigger audiences like Hot Air, can submit the potential fake to a wide group of potential experts, as has happened in the IDF missile attack on the Reuters truck.

Debunking the debunkers should not be viewed as a “gotcha” moment. Before, however, submitting that any potential “fake” is, in fact, a fake, perhaps some group of bloggers–including those like Allah and others, could examine and get the potential story right before jumping to conclusions like the MSM did with Katrina stories last year.

We should not attack each other, but discuss, debate, and critically examine each example as they come. Sometimes a duck is a duck. Sometimes the eye is fooled, and the mind cynical. Let us not repeat the argument that even though a certain example is not a fake, that the criticism–MSM fauxtography–is true everywhere else. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Someone like Zombietime clearly provides a demonstrably sound way of conducting just such a process of examination. Now get back to MSM watching!

Let’s look at the facts.

It’s rather hard to do that when the MSM lets itself get deceived OR willfully does the deceiving. How does one know the facts?

Remember the “dead, raped babies in the Superdome” meme of a year ago? The MSM reported those “facts” to us nightly.

Ace writes:

Just because Hezbollah and Reuters have been caught lying does not mean that every report of an errant Israeli strike is a lie.

Well, DOH!

Nevertheless, when the MSM is caught lying time after time after time, not just about the IDF, but in covering our own national disasters, truth becomes the servant of agenda.

So how are WE to know the difference?

As a news consumer, I have a choice. Believe what they report on whatever the subject, or withhold my consent.

Given the irresponsibility of the media in perpetuating false news while purporting to cover everything from the Iraq War to Katrina to the Hezbollah-Israeli war, I chose to DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING the media says until PROVEN true.

So, for this reader, Ace’s point gets lost.

When you have no credibility (because you pissed it away with fake photos, etc.), then nothing you say can be accepted — and yes, until proven otherwise, I will assume that every reported IDF errant missile strike on a press van/ambulance, whatever, is false reporting or part of an agenda.

To be clear: I am perfectly capable of accepting the truth of collateral damage during combat. But first, it will have to be proven that collateral damage ACTUALLY OCCURED. And photos of a hole in a van or ambulance, with a caption that the IDF did it, are NO LONGER SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE EVENT OCCURED.

John Mark Karr says he did it. Doesn’t make it true.

Pablo on August 29, 2006 at 5:24 PM

Because that’s a fair comparison. Wow!

The whole conservative side of the blogosphere is onto the grotesque manipulation by terrorists of the seemingly all-too-willing MSM. It’s no wonder they won’t report on it… and why blogs are picking up the pieces….