I copied and pasted your words, yonaton.

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.

And speaking of reality, misquoting someone is the same as lying.

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.

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 a vehicle:

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.

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.

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:

“During the operation, there was an aerial attack on a suspicious vehicle that drove in a suspicious manner right by the forces and in between the Palestinian militant posts,” army spokeswoman Captain Noa Meir said.

“This car was not identified by the army as a press vehicle. This has been a combat area. It is not recommended for anyone to be around. We do not target the press. If journalists were hurt, we regret it.”

It wasn’t just what I spent the most time debunking, but he sleezily misquoted that whole thing to suit his faux interpretation.

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.

Pablo, we’ve got you redhanded misquoting for the purposes of deception.

Shame, Pablo, Bad BlogPoster!

I’m ready for your apology anytime now.

yonaton, the photo you linked IS the photo Steyn was using.

– 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?

NPP, suppose it were shot from above with an RPG. Possible?

Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 12:21 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.

Here is the first part again,…

…first mine,…

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

…then Pablo’s.…

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.

PLEASE NOTE HOW HE CHANGED MY

“the EXACT OPPOSITE is true”,

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…

“but they OFFICIALLY DENIED it”

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!

Let’s review:

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.

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, as to Israels alleged “admitting” targeting that vehicle. I suggest you try to google that. You will NOT find ANYTHING…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

His assistant e-mailed it to me and gave me the link:
HERE

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.

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.

“Actually, Reuters didn’t claim that Shana was wounded” — H.A.

Air strike hurts two journalists in Gaza: doctors — Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:03pm ET reuters

Um, EXCUSE me!

GAZA (Reuters) – Two journalists were wounded by an Israeli air strike that hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, doctors and residents said.
One of the journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was lightly wounded in the air strike, the doctors said. ….

Fadel Shana, a Reuters cameraman, was lightly wounded in the blast.

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!).

Ballistics experts Thursday exposed another false claim by journalists and Arabs that the Israeli Air Force bombed their vehicles.

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.

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..

The plain fact is that western journalists were sent to cover the war being waged against Israel from Lebanon as a war being waged by Israel against Lebanon.

That’s why the fact that hundreds of thousands of refugees from the north of Israel fled to the shelter of strangers in the south; that within one third of Israel, those too poor or old or handicapped or disadvantaged to seek refuge elsewhere were forced to live in shelters for a month in great hardship; that the entire economy of northern Israel was effectively shut down for a month; that thousands of rockets were fired at northern Israel, hundreds every day, many times more than were daily fired at Britain during the Blitz — that’s why none of this was reported in Britain (where as a result such facts, when now related, are received with open-mouthed astonishment) because journalists were told to ignore it all since that wasn’t the story their editors wanted. Israel’s victimisation simply was not, could not, be the story. The only story was Israel’s aggression. But that story is a Big Lie. So a host of lies were transmitted to support it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As my drill-insructer used to yell at me, assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

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.

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.

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.

5. Terrorists hit the van with something and caused the injuries, either with a rocket or small missile.

Revealing, that.

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.