Fauxtography: Ambulance chasers
posted at 12:47 pm on September 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I opted out of the great ambulance airstrike controversy a few weeks ago, after the attack on the Reuters van in Gaza. As Ace said at the time,
The fact that the sort of damage inflicted on the press van is similar to the damage inflicted on the Lebanese ambulances should not be taken as suggestive of the press-van hit being a fake. It should rather be taken as suggestive that the ambulance-hit stories are more likely to be true, and attempts to debunk them, while well-intentioned and inspired by good questions about the extent of damage inflicted, should be reexamined.
There’s since been some reexamination. After no less a figure than Aussie Foreign Minister Alexander Downer pronounced the ambulance incident a hoax, the Age newspaper went back to the scene of the alleged crime to investigate — and concluded that the airstrike really did happen. Which prompted Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt to respond with this piece debunking the hell out of the Age’s findings.
There’s much minutiae in both, so if you haven’t been following the ambulance saga you probably won’t find them interesting. If you have, dive on in.
As for the Reuters airstrike, Mark Steyn mentioned it in his latest column and I can’t let it pass without comment:
Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga. What’s stunning is not that almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict — that’s been known for some time — but the amateurish level of fakery that head office is willing to go along with.
Actually, Reuters didn’t claim that Shana was wounded. Here’s what they said:
One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, the doctors said…
Sabbah Hmaida, who works for a local news Web site, was seriously wounded in the legs.
Fadel Shana, a Reuters cameraman, received no major bodily wounds in the air strike, but was knocked unconscious.
BizzyBlog has posted the photo to which Steyn was referring. The blood on Shana’s shirt is, in all likelihood, Hmaida’s; there’s none on the white undershirt because it came from the guy next to him, not from his own chest. Here’s another photo of Shana showing blood on his right sleeve and the underside of his right hand:
You’d need a blood-spatter expert to theorize how the blood made the patterns it did on his clothes, but I think it’s safe to say the stains came from an external source. Besides, the Palestinians like their propaganda as grotesque and maudlin as possible; if they were going to concoct a story about Israel firing on the press, they wouldn’t limit themselves to a few silver-dollar sized marks on the guy’s shirt. They’d make him look like Sissy Spacek at the end of “Carrie.”
Update: Tim Blair’s written no fewer than ten posts on the ambulance story. Numbers nine and ten in particular are worth reading.
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
Actually, Steyn didn’t claim that Reuters claimed that Shana was wounded, either.
If you’re infering from Steyn’s article that indeed he did make such a claim, then you must also infer from Reuter’s propaganda shot that they claimed Shana was wounded.
So which is it?
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 1:30 PM
There are now so many versions of this event that it’s now difficult to know what the alleged facts are which may or may not have been debunked. Except for one, that is: There is not a single photograph presented that appears to be of an ambulance that has been struck by any sort of missile.
Have a ball with the rest, but I quit looking after that one.
Pablo on September 4, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Sorry Allah but you blew it on this one, Steyn and others were relying on the picture caption, as they should, which said:
“Injured Reuters cameraman Fadel Shama’a, 23, is wheeled into the emergency room of the hospital in Gaza City early Sunday Aug. 27, 2006.”
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060827/481/efcde6f4547f4ae59234b39c0fe462e8
The difference between “wounded” and “injured” is splitting hairs. The fact is, the picture caption is deceptive. This doesn’t mean it was a calculated propaganda effort, but it could have very easily been an opportunistic one. If something other than an Israeli missile/rocket damaged the reuters vehicle, the lie is that the palestinians are attributing the ‘real’ damage to the wrong source.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 1:36 PM
Say what? Quote: “A few days ago, [Reuters] made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana.”
Here’s the caption for the photo I posted:
According to Snapped Shot, the caption to the photo Steyn cited reads as follows:
All of this is accurate. He was injured; he was knocked unconscious. But it’s not his blood. How is this a distortion?
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Here is the whole caption:
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Guys, what Steyn is suggesting is that the blood on his shirt was placed there. That’s why he mentions the spotless white undershirt; he’s implying that the whole thing is a fraud. It isn’t.
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 1:39 PM
I dont think you have that exactly right. What Steyn is saying is that Reuters was making a big “hoo-ha” about Fadel Shana being wounded by the Israelis, when a quick look at the photo reveals that the blood splattered on his shirt is clearly not his own blood. All of what he said is accurate. He calls this “fakery” which is true in the sense that the photo’s caption is sloppy reporting at best. You can’t blame Steyn for the inferences you make beyond what he said.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 1:48 PM
It also isn’t this:
So what is it? And how can we ever trust that we know what it actually is?
Let’s have an impartial forensic examination of the vehicle, and let’s have the results of the IDF inquiry, to include what ordnance was used in the encounter, what it was fired at and why it was fired. These should all be knowable things and we should cast a suspicious eye on those who would seek to keep us from knowing them.
Pablo on September 4, 2006 at 1:56 PM
“Posed”? He’s clearly implying there’s deception here in the image itself, not just the caption. And no, not all of what he said is accurate: all of what Reuters said is accurate. If you want to dismiss the distinction between “wounded” and “injured” as irrelevant, go right ahead, but Reuters’s description here is closer to the truth than Steyn’s is.
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 1:58 PM
This is from the FOX story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210631,00.html
So you have Reuters saying the car was hit by two missiles, and you have the ‘hospital officials’ saying that Fadel Shana, along with 4 others, were all sent to surgery?
And no one is lying here?
Why are we nit-picking Steyn when there are such obvious lies? Steyn doesnt know the story as well as the people following it at hotair.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Oh really AP? Reuters said 2 missiles hit the car, is that accurate?
I would be skeptical of that photo too, after seeing the faked photos of the “guy with the hat” posing in the rubble in lebanon. Fadel Shana was supposedly knocked unconscious in the blast, and was still unconscious while being taken to the emergency room, for surgery? No, I dont really think the Reuters account is all that reliable either, and you don’t know the truth, AP, all you are doing is making your own personal credibility judgments. It is just as reasonable to pass judgment that Reuters is lying about Fadel Shana. Reuters is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
It is one thing for you to choose to give Reuters the benefit of the doubt, for you to take what Reuters says on faith, but given how Reuters has lied in the past, and given how Reuters has probably lied in the context of this story (the two missiles), I don’t see why you are criticizing people for not giving Reuters as much credit as you have.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Reuters = Lairs
Marvin on September 4, 2006 at 2:18 PM
!!! Steyn is published on three continents. If he doesn’t know the story well, why on earth is he writing about it?
Look, the clear implication I took from his piece is that Reuters and/or the Palestinians had staged the injuries to Shana, down to the bloodstains on his clothes. I’m a fan of his; I don’t read his columns looking to put the most unfavorable spin on what he says. Other fans of his are going to read that passage the same way I did, but because they aren’t as familiar with the facts of the incident, they’ll take it at face value. “Oh, the Palis are using fake blood now. Wonderful.”
As you know only too well, we’ve had more than one munitions professional posting here over the past week claiming that missiles might very well have hit the car. I can’t tell you for sure if it happened that way, but when we’ve got multiple experts telling us it might have, yeah, I’m inclined to consider it within the realm of possibility.
Israel’s admitted to the airstrike; we’ve got multiple eyewitness accounts that the two men were injured; there are photos and video of the van showing blood inside. And yet I’m to believe that because it was a Reuters van, it’s likelier that the whole story’s a hoax perpetrated by an impromptu conspiracy of Palestinians and snidely-whiplash journalists than that it happened roughly the way they said it did (i.e., Israeli aircraft attack, something punctures the roof injuring the people inside)?
You’re getting awfully close to saying that where Reuters is concerned, no amount of evidence — none — will convince you that they might ever be right. Once you’re there, you’re in Truther-land.
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 2:26 PM
And by the way:
Then whose blood is it? Steyn doesn’t mention there was another person in the van. If all he’s suggesting is that the caption was vague in not specifying that the blood came from Hmaida, why on earth didn’t he tell his readers that Hmaida was there?
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 2:28 PM
Oh, and it doesn’t make us ‘truthers’ just because we are skeptical of a news agency which has consistently demonstrated a lack of objectivity in this conflict, and has long since squandered its credibility. There is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on the extent to which reuters was deceptive and/or sloppy in how it reported this incident.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 2:29 PM
That’s true, it doesn’t. The distinction between skeptics and Truthers is that Truthers can’t be persuaded; no amount of evidence will convince them they’re wrong. I’ll admit I’m wrong here if someone gives me some evidence to think Shana was “posed” on the stretcher instead of genuinely hurt, or that the blood spatter on his shirt couldn’t have been made accidentally, etc. Otherwise, Occam’s Razor.
Allahpundit on September 4, 2006 at 2:35 PM
No offense, but you’re cutting Reuters an awful lot of slack there, AP.
Please name one - just one - single piece of evidence (as in the original, unadulterated meaning of the term evidence) that Reuters put forth so far to corroborate their version of events.
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 2:41 PM
To be more specific, AP: In a comment above you pointed out that there was already an “expert” at work “debunking” some “myths” in the comments here. I guess that was meant to set a benchmark or something.
So where is Reuters’ forensic expert on this? I’m sure we all agree that when Reuters can find and cite “experts” on all matters conceivable - nuclear technology, desert warfare, mountain caves, Islamic poetry - they sure could find a forensic “expert” to examine the van and once and for all settle the “Truthers’” allegations, dontcha think?
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 2:46 PM
I’ve got to side with AllahPundit on this one. While I don’t trust anything out of Reuters, and I don’t doubt they hope that blood on his shirt makes things look worse, there isn’t evidence that the blood was “added” to him, however if that were ever proven, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least. So I’ll give Allah credit for his prudence, though I still can’t on this one.
AP, the only part of your analysis here I take issue with, or that prompts me to ask a question is this:
Honestly this is more of an honest question, because I don’t know where you come down on this… But what is your position on WMDs in Iraq? I believe they were there and moved to/through Syria in the days (maybe months, remember Rockefeller’s little vacation?) before the war, and I believe there may be some still there (VERY interesting read.)
Anyway, my point is this. Aside from all the Dems (who made a stronger case for WMDs for over a decade leading up to the war) that call Bush a liar, virtually everyone has said “bad intell, they weren’t there”, while to me it seems quite clear that they were (links provided if necessary, for why I believe this). Hell, we found something like 500 old chemical weapons. Why weren’t they disclosed to the UN if Saddam wasn’t hiding something? etc. etc.
My point is this, I don’t think that Israel admitting it means it really happened… because what would happen if they did? Do you think anything would happen but accusations of an attempted cover-up by the Israelis? Just like they weren’t going to argue about all the phoniness of the images out of Qana. It’s the same reason I believe the Bush admin. doesn’t say “we know the WMDs were there” today… can you imagine the media blasting he would get if he wasn’t actually holding the stuff? Even then they’d accuse him of planting it. Just like he doesn’t come out against the Ted Kennedy’s, etc. who call him a liar and say “listen you little sh**s, you were making this argument for years before I came to Washington, was I hyping intell then?” Like Bush, the Israelis take such a beating in the media (we’ve seen it in Bush’s poll numbers) they really can’t take any more, and aren’t going to go out seeking it.
So basically I’m going on and on to make the point that I don’t necessarily buy the “Israel admitted it” thing.
RightWinged on September 4, 2006 at 2:50 PM
That is honestly not how I read it. I did not invest the importance you did in the word “posed” for example.
If anything, I think you are making the same mistake you are attributing to Steyn. Steyn may have read too much into the photo’s caption, but many other people who saw that photo and its caption would have assumed that the man pictured had been wounded, the blood on his shirt being his own. You are doing the same thing to Steyn: criticizing him for what people may have inferred, that Steyn is doing to Reuters/AP.
There were 2 eod people who claimed that the hole was consistent with a single rocket, and many other experts who contradicted that on many different grounds both here and elsewhere. No one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that it could have been a missile, let alone two missiles. The single rocket theory was shaky at best, and you had a guy who was in the IAF saying that the IAF would not be using rockets like that.
You know that first, Israel often admits to things it doesn’t do, and second, Israel admitting to shooting something, not this specific vehicle.
More like, something happened while these guys were driving to the scene that caused the damage, and instead of admitting to the actual cause of the damage (which would be embarrassing, a non-story, and not helpful to their side), they merely blamed the Israelis. Is that so hard to believe? No one, including Steyn, is saying the thing was fabricated from whole cloth. Steyn does not go that far. Rather, it makes more sense that the palestinians involved took the truth and twisted it in order to score some points.
Heh, I wrote my little post starting “Oh, and it doesn’t make us ‘truthers’” before I saw your comment. heheheh. I could tell it was coming!
But seriously, no I would have been competely happy to take Reuters side of the story at face value *IF* I thought the vehicle was hit by even one Israeli missile let alone two. I don’t buy that for a second, and if the vehicle wasn’t hit by the Israelis, then the rest of the story necessarily unravels and the best theory to explain events falls to what I have now: that some other thing (accident, rollover, falling concrete, etc) caused the damage, and the palestinians simply pointed the finger at the Israelis. If the vehicle did look like it could have possibly been hit by a missile or two, then you would not have seen the criticism this story got from so many in the blogosphere.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 2:53 PM
I’ll remember that if/when I get more on the NY Times/Hicks photoshopped head. I still don’t think it needs more evidence, but I mean when I can actually get someone to give me a real response unlike that fakely interested beyotch Seth Carlson, who scampered away once we got down to business.
RightWinged on September 4, 2006 at 2:55 PM
I feel the same way. The difference here is that for me Occam’s Razor cuts in a different direction than it does for you because are more open to the possibility that an IAF missile hit the car than I am.
kaltes on September 4, 2006 at 3:00 PM
You know, funny thing is …
If Israel again declared war against Lebanon (or Syria, Iran, etc), and their troops actually stayed at home, i.e. not moving a single battalion across borders and not firing a single shot from any military asset, we’d still see the same claims from the same parties about their injured civilians/staff/bystanders, the same pictures from the usual suspects (Reuters, AFP, AP), and the same eye witnesses making the same allegations we read today.
Anyway, it’s quite revealing how constrained the speculation is. Here, let me put forth another option:
The Israelis didn’t hit Reuters’ van. Hezbollah did.
Disprove it.
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 3:11 PM
AP:
Uh, what is the distinction between wounded and inured? As far as I knew, the words were synonyms.
I think I am missing a point here.
EFG on September 4, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Wow,
AP is getting dog-piled on. I, for one, agree with his assessment.
It seems to me there are four possibilites here:
1. Israel hit the van with something and caused the injuries, either with a rocket or small missile.
2. The whole thing was a complete and total fabrication.
3. Israel didn’t hit the vehicle, but it was nearby and took some kind of damage (falling debris, shrapnel, whatever) which injured the people.
4. The vehicle was damaged from by the Israeli’s (either from a direct hit or near-miss). No one was injured, so everything else was fabricated.
In my view, the 2nd and 4th possibilities are the least likely. I don’t see that there is any evidence either way to indicate whether real injuries to people were purposely exaggerated or not, which is what Steyn seems to be suggesting.
A few more things to keep in mind:
The wire services are frequently wrong, especially in the details, but that doesn’t mean it’s intentional or nefarious. In a chaotic situation like war with competition to get the stories out, mistakes happen. People need to be careful when applying intent to those mistakes. Several posters here seem to believe that if anything comes out of Reuters that turns out to be incorrect or not quite the whole truth, especially in regard to Israel/Hezbollah/Gaza then it MUST be intentional deception or bias. Where bias or deception can be shown, then it should be, but if every time a story comes out and the righty blogs assume and scream “lies” then credibility is quickly lost and few will listen when the lies are real. As my drill-insructer used to yell at me, assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
NPP on September 4, 2006 at 4:14 PM
NPP, why is there no …
5. Terrorists hit the van with something and caused the injuries, either with a rocket or small missile.
Revealing, that.
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 4:20 PM
One rocket, I could be convinced given more evidence, such as that they were using the suspected rockets. Two, I’m not buying.
NPP, another possibility is some mixture of the above. It is perfectly possible to know what happened here. In fact, Reuters has demanded an investigation. Are they investigating? Is the IDF? I don’t see Reuters flogging it, and that surprises me.
Pablo on September 4, 2006 at 4:37 PM
Pablo,
My alternative theory, which everyone seems to have missed, was that the van was hit by the new missile that’s used on the Israeli UAV’s. We don’t know what this missile is, but it appears, from various sources, to be a small, precision weapon designed to take out a regular car or small groups of individuals with little collateral damage. Such a missile would probably have similar or lesser explosive power than a 2.75 rocket. But let’s not debate that again unless some new evidence comes up. If you want the details, they’re on the old thread.
Niko,
That would fall under #2 - a total fabrication. Wait, I guess what you may be suggesting is that Hamas was firing something at the Israeli’s and it hit the Reuters van. Or maybe you’re suggesting they deliberately hit the van. Unless Hamas has some kind of aircraft with an air-to-surface weapon, then I think this is a remote possibility. The main action with the Israels was, IIRC, about 1500 meters away from where the van may or may not have been hit. I don’t know of any Hamas weaponry that would do the damage in the pictures.
NPP on September 4, 2006 at 5:07 PM
Well, as of July 2006 we didn’t know of any Hezbollah weaponry that could strike way into the heartland of Israel or at her naval vessels, either, yet they did. Also, recent intelligence suggests that pan-Arab terrorist organizations are stepping up efforts to train and equip Palestinian terrorists in Gaza.
It’s interesting that in a region where Israel is well-known for precision strikes, and her enemies are well-known for arbitrary shots and attacks against both their own people and suspect “collaborators”, that in such a theatre a van gets attacked by unknown forces, using unidentified ordnance, yet all fingers seem to be pointing at … Israel.
Niko on September 4, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Interesting point… and I wanted to add one other thing. While I lean more towards AllahPundit’s approach on this one, I do actually differ on the ambulance. I think this is apples and oranges, and the ambulance story shouldn’t be linked in with this. Zombie makes way to compelling a case anyway.
RightWinged on September 4, 2006 at 6:23 PM
YES, IT IS A FRAUD
Israel not only DID NOT admit to targeting them (the faux quotes from “Israeli officials” can only be found in Arab news and moonbat posts), but they OFFICIALLY DENIED it.
But, SO WHAT?!
That’s not the main issue. What we really need to keep in focus here is that this is part of a long term pattern of perfidy with the world press in colusion with terrorists. THAT is the main issue here.
It’s all a ruse, that Melanie Phillips (and the facts, if any bother to acknowledge them) clearly exposes..
With regard to the non-people everyone mistakenly calls “Palestinian” we have Pallywood.”">documetary evidence of their fraud, as well.
And, consider this list of “work accidents” which is what they call a bomb-making attempt gone wrong. There are 90 such cases, going back to 2001. And these are just the tiny fraction of failures. Just think of all the successes. They blow THEMSElVES up, and then blame it on US! But that isn’t the worst part. What’s really unbelievable is that SO VERY MANY people believe that garbage.
There is plenty of information on this subject, and there is no excuse for any responsible person not to be aware of it. History innevitably vindicates the innocent, and spews out the guilty.
yonaton on September 4, 2006 at 7:22 PM
Air strike hurts two journalists in Gaza: doctors — Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:03pm ET reuters
Um, EXCUSE me!
That’s 3 instances of Reuters saying he was “wounded,” so, Perhaps it depends on which post you read, and/or when you read it?
And is it Shana, or Shama’a? …Shama …Shananah? Oh, well, a Sham by any other name….you know how it goes. Anyway, here’s another photo of Shana/Shama’a/Shamah/Shanana, whatever, which may have been the one Steyn was looking at? As long as Reuters leaves this photo online, it is clear that Steyn is right.
You can clearly see the pristene white undershirt. Ooops.
And, as to Israels alleged “admitting” targeting that vehicle. I suggest you try to google that. You will NOT find ANYTHING (except maybe some idiot moonbats and Arab news reports (same thing) claiming Israel did) that shows Israel taking credit for that, even by mistake. In fact, AkkahPundit, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true (expletive epithet almost not deleted!).
One final thing. Please consider these pictures…
The “2-missile-attacked van” vs the remains of Rantisi’s car, or this generic shot courtesy of CNN. There’s no comparison.
Sometimes a targeted terrorist escapes a missile attack, but never a direct hit, as Rotter’s is attempting to make this appear.
yonaton on September 4, 2006 at 7:32 PM
sorry, but the photo link I entered here…
didn’t work, for some reason, and since it’s critical, here it is….
http://www.snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2006/capt.efcde6f4547f4ae59234b39c0fe462e8.mideast_israel_palestinians_xem103.jpg
And I’ve also entered it into the quote above, correctly this time, I hope.
yonaton on September 4, 2006 at 8:32 PM
yonaton, the photo you linked IS the photo Steyn was using.
His assistant e-mailed it to me and gave me the link:
HERE
Tom Blumer on September 4, 2006 at 9:36 PM
That’s interesting Niko. As I said, it’s a remote possibility, but there’s no evidence to support it and there are many obvious problems with that theory. I can think of many other “possible” scenarios with no evidence to support them either.
With regard to the new weapons Hezbollah received - yes it came as a shock to both Israel and the US. Intelligence, like other social sciences, is based on evidence. If there isn’t any evidence to indicate that Hezbollah received a certain weapon, then it’s only natural to assess they don’t have that weapon. That’s why intelligence is so dependent on access and good sources. That’s why tactical and strategic surprise is such a problem, especially when our enemies go to great lengths to obfuscate their activities and intentions. Intelligence professionals can’t make assessments based on nothing.
NPP on September 4, 2006 at 9:40 PM
yonaton, that link does not show an official IDF denial. It mentions it in the headline and then doesn’t say another word about it. It contains NO QUOTES from Israeli officials. Sorry, but that link is useless to the discussion.
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 12:17 PM
NPP, suppose it were shot from above with an RPG. Possible?
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 12:21 PM
PABLO. MY PONT WAS THAT ISRAEL DID NOT ADMIT TO IT, AS SOME HERE HAVE CLAIMED.
Let’s review:
yonaton, that link does not show an official IDF denial. It mentions it in the headline and then doesn’t say another word about it. It contains NO QUOTES from Israeli officials. Sorry, but that link is useless to the discussion.
Pablo, that was EXACTLY MY POINT when I said…
AND, what I added was ALL I could find from a reliable Israeli source on the subject. Though you are right that no Israeli source stooped to affirming or denying this propaganda (they can’t respond to every stupid lie, or that’s all they would be doing), the makers of the armored vehicle apparently said that the damage to the vehicle COULD NOT have been made by an Israeli missle.
So, by telling us that Israeli officials said NOTHING about this one way or the other, which is my MAIN point, you merely help to confirm that point.
It would be nice if I knew who those balistic experts were from the van manufacurer, and exactly what they said, but I’ll take the word of ARUTZ7, people who never lie to me and are seldom wrong, as opposed to the words of those whose essence is falsehood.
yonaton on September 5, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Hmm, looks like I can’t do blockquotes inside of blockquotes, and something was deleted from the above.
Here is the first part again,…
…first mine,…
…then Pablo’s.…
PLEASE NOTE HOW HE CHANGED MY
by which I meant that all I could find in legitimate sources contradicted the Arab and some news reports.
Now compare that with what Pablo alleges I said…
That is NOT what I said, and not what I meant, as I explained. One might think that I meant that on an initial reading, but if he read it carefully he would see that couldn’t be what I meant. Still, that is NO excuse to falsify what I said.
Pablo, we’ve got you redhanded misquoting for the purposes of deception.
Shame, Pablo, Bad BlogPoster!
yonaton on September 5, 2006 at 1:10 PM
That was dismissed fairly early on, because the shaped charge in an RPG usually leaves very telltale holes that are absent on this vehicle.
RustMouse on September 5, 2006 at 1:20 PM
- Tom Blumer on September 4, 2006 at 9:36 PM
Thanks, Tom.
Oh, and another thing about Pablo’s misquote. It wasn’t just what I spent the most time debunking, but he sleezily misquoted that whole thing to suit his faux interpretation. How can we have any meaningful dialogue with people who won’t even quote us correctly?
yonaton on September 5, 2006 at 1:25 PM
yonaton, that would be great but for that I’m pretty much on your side of this discussion. I just won’t use absolute crap like that Arutz Sheva piece to make a determination nor to support my position.
Oh, and that “misquote” is a direct copy and pasted from the second line of your post above at 7:22 PM. I didn’t misquote you and I didn’t change a word. That would be the post directly above the one you say I quoted and changed. You said they officially denied it, and now you claim I’m making that up and putting it in your mouth.
I’m ready for your apology anytime now.
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 1:58 PM
While we’re at it, let’s try another little dash of reality. Here’s the part where the IAF spokesperson says they fired on the vehicle:
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 2:39 PM
To the lying weasel who misquoted me
I still can find NO reference to the IDFacknowledging that alleged “attack” on the Reuters van in Israeli papers, nor on the IDF website.
As to the source of your “dash of reality,” why should I believe them until independently confirmed by reliable sources?
And when I news-google “army spokeswoman Captain Noa Meir”, I get only 6 entries! That is indeed a “dash” of something, but I’m still not convinced it’s “reality,” especially considering the sources.
But, If the army did appologize for it (as they often do, even when they later find out they didn’t do it), I’ll admit I was wrong, but I’m not quite ready to do that until I am sure. Until then, I’ll consider it a matter of congecture, especially since your sources aren’t exactly the most reliable.
By way of illustration: Bombing of Funeral: False Reporting by Reuters
And speaking of reality, misquoting someone is the same as lying. And it can’t be a matter of conjecture, since the gross difference between your misquote of me and my actual words is recorded on this very page.
yonaton on September 5, 2006 at 3:56 PM
kaltes on September 5, 2006 at 4:01 PM
I copied and pasted your words, yonaton. They are exactly as you wrote them on this very thread. Reality is not your friend. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Not only are you walking away from your words, you call me a liar for quoting you directly. Seek help.
kaltes, I think it’s right as I said it, but like you I don’t think it proves anything. I’m as skeptical as you are, but I insist on tracking the facts as we best know them. In this case, like too many others before, the IDF copped to it. I think it may have been premature. yonaton wants to pretend it never happened. That’s not kosher. We don’t get to figuring out what happened by ignoring things that did happen. In this case, Israel made a statement and arguing that they didn’t is just nuts.
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 9:46 PM
Ah, the other post. Then I must appologize. You did not lie about that.
I need to not post when I have a migraine, but that’s no excuse. You did copy and paste my words, and I was wrong to call you a liar about that.
One needs to keep one’s temper, even though it’s hard to do when talking to someone who insists on using quesitionable sources for “proof.”
I will check again on the # of, and sources for an Israeli “admission,” using YOUR quote, for which I got 6 yesterday.
Today, a news-google gives only 3 entries for that “quote.” Two are Reuters reports, and one says it’s JawaReport, but turns out to be ConfederateYankee, who is quoting the Reuters report.
Where did the other 3 go?
AGAIN, ALL THAT I CAN FIND TODAY IS THAT REUTERS CLAIMED THAT ISRAEL SAID THEY ATTACKED THE VAN. SO, REUTERS, WHO CREDIBILITY WE ARE QUESTIONING ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CARRY YOUR QUOTE THAT SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM. That’s just WAY too suspicious! Got anything else?
If you want me to believe it, you have to give me something more official, and not another news source that is probably quoting Reuters or someone quoting someone quoting them.
And, as we recall, Israel ALSO appologized for POSSIBLY “shelling” some “Palestinians” on a Gaza beach, before it was shown that they did NOT.
So, your “quote” that allegedly “proves” Israel targeted the vehicle because Reuters reported that Israel “allegedly” admitted to targeting that vehicle is NOT A PROOF.
BUT, just because I made a fool of myself over your nonsense does NOT prove you are correct.
yonaton on September 6, 2006 at 9:49 PM