<< $1050 PER IDIOT ~ MAIN ~ STEVE IRWIN >>
MISSILE STORY X (UPDATED - INCLUDES PIC)
Dan Riehl has second thoughts on the Red Cross ambulance story after reading Sarah Smiles’ report in the Age and reviewing video footage. Powerline’s John Hinderaker isn’t convinced by Riehl’s latest post. Unhelpfully, the Age doesn’t run any image of the ambulance in question online.
I think I know why. I’ve got a print copy of the paper in front of me. Only one photograph accompanies the article (this below the ridiculous headline “Ambulance attack evidence stands the test”). The “huge hole” Smiles describes is in fact only about twice the size of the vent hole on ambulance 782. The vehicle’s roof is caved in, as with 782—so much for a concussive force within—and there are similar scattered holes and abundant rust. But, unlike 782, the red paint of the cross is cracked and split with age and faded down to a weak pink; this unit looks very old. Also, there are five closely-grouped holes on the cross itself which could be the result of small-arms fire. Page 16 of Saturday’s Age, if anyone wishes to scan the image. Meanwhile, UPI reports:
A news photo that circulated worldwide of a Lebanese ambulance hit by an Israeli missile was a hoax, the Israeli Arutz Sheva broadcaster said Thursday.
UPDATE. Here’s the Age‘s photograph (courtesy of David P.):
UPDATE II. From the video supplied to ITV, an image of the interior. Note all the limb-cauterising fire damage:
(Again, via David P.)
UPDATE III. USS Neverdock:
The photograph the Age uses to bolster its case is even worse than the original. When in a hole, don’t dig.
Note how The Age today Mon 4/9 has chosen to deal with reaction to the ambo-hoax – giving a run to pro-Age letters no matter how daft, and running nothing from the other side. Did The Age not get a single letter from ambulance skeptics, other than the single one The Age published a day after the story first appeared in July?
Alexander in Zombieland
THANK you very much, Alexander Downer, for pointing out the elaborate, anti-Israel hoax perpetrated by the world media to portray the honourable Israeli army as Red-Cross-bombing war criminals (The Age, 2/9).
At last somebody has the guts to acknowledge that the only place to get solid, unbiased, learned information is the internet. It is good to see that our Government no longer relies on the first-hand reports, media agencies such as The Age or the BBC, or even advice from their own departments. Instead you are willing to embrace the completely reliable, egalitarian world forum that is fast replacing the archaic, inconvenient sources such as the media agencies, which only rely on their integrity and reputations.
You have been brave enough to get your information unfiltered, unchecked and completely randomly from anonymous sites where respected and esteemed scientists like Mr Zombie analyse digital images and come up with their own opinions, then publish it as fact.
I look forward to you publicising more research in this way such as the learned Dr Stefan Grossman’s work on 9/11 (it was all holograms — http://www.gallerize.com), Brad and The Cosmic Penguin’s overwhelming evidence that tells us that there is no way a passenger plane hit the Pentagon (http://www.freedomfiles.org, http://www.cosmicpenguin.com) and of course Herman Otten’s proof that the Holocaust never occurred (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au).
I think you should have your own site so that we’d know that Saddam plotted 9/11, he had loads of WMD, queue jumpers throw their kids overboard and you had no idea about those silly AWB warnings.
If only more people would trust the internet there would be no need to learn boring old history because we’d be rewriting it every day.
Colin Mowbray, Fitzroy
Not online – in Letters briefs todayHoaxes
Fake exposers exposed as fakes (“Ambulance attack evidence stands the test” The Age 2/9) : has anyone told Alexander Downer there’s no need to rely on second-rate conspiracy websites? I’d have thought he has all the intelligence services of the Australian Government at his disposal. Benni Seidel, Alexandria, NSW.
Letters to EditorI’m new to the work of this so called ‘journalist’ Sarah Smiles.
Earlier today, a friend emailed me this piece by her, sympathising with Hezbollah and all the wonderful social services that their non-military wing perform:
[Gigantic, page-destroying url removed because The Management is out of patience. Anyone wanting to read up on terrorist-sympathizing junk by this Smiles woman is welcome to do so on their own.]
So I would take her visual testimony and conclusions with a grain of salt, to say the least.
O/T
Steve Irwin has just been killed by a stingray near Cairns.#4 Sad, sad news. I feel for his wife and children.
Sure he seemed a bit of a clown, but he was a John Howard fan. If I knew nothing else of him, that would be enough.
That and pretending to work for him when I was travelling through the US and Europe made things considerably easier when talking with young ladies.
I guess he also went doing what he loved, which is more than I could say about myself if I suddenly dropped of the twig here at work....
He would have squeezed an awful lot into his 44 years… It is sad for Terri and the yound kiddy of his that he took into the crocodile pen and almost got eaten....
PS I hope they find that damn stingray who has robbed us of Steve and fix it up good and proper!!!
I have been next to a bloke on a trawler who was struck on the wrist by a small (30-50cm) wide stingray. Tiny puncture but struck bone. They also tend to be barbed on the tip and do a fair bit of damage. If it was a big ray it could have done catastophic damage. At least the bloke died like he lived I suppose.
Barrie . You can hande rays a lot and still get hit by one. Generaly pretty placid but dont give “warning shots” either strike or run, not much in-between.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 01:34 AM • permalinkDamn. I actually pet the manta rays in the tank at Sea World. (The last time I went there in the late 90s they had them in this open tank and you could just reach in and stroke them on the back. They felt like wet mousepads.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 01:50 AM • permalinkForget the bloody missiles Steve Irwin is dead! How on earth do we break this to the kids?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1732439.htm
Posted by the nailgun on 2006 09 04 at 01:54 AM • permalinkHey guys, I was searching through the Australian Letters section, (where I had put up my own letter) and I noticed that the post has completely disappeared.
These were linked to from this site
Here- http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/missile_story_iv/
And here- http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/missile_story_v/This is the leters section where u will find the posts missing - http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/
I find this slightly troubling as letters appear before and after the 1st of September in the short history, but all of the letters from this day are gone.
Tim is this normal practice?.....And if this is, is it ethical of them to remove the critical opinions on the article by Martin Chulov.
Something smells like fish…..
Do Manta rays have stings??? I thought they may not have and so were not a stingray per se??? But then I also seem to recall seeing pics of mantas in the wild and fully grown they seemed pretty humungus, not exactly the sort of things I think would fit in a smallish tank to let people stroke them etc???
But I am no expert on these things....
I wish the Irwin family peace and sympathy. I only caught bits and pieces of his show from time to time, but he always struck me as a man who actually LIVED his passion...how many of us can say the same? Seems like he can now look down at his life and say that he did those things he had always meant to do. How many of us can say the same? I should hope to go out living life with the kind of joy that Steve Irwin had. What is the saying : “you shouldnt leave life moaning and crippled, rather you should slide in roaring ‘wooo hooo! what a ride!’” Seems to me Steve is doing that right about now.
Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 09 04 at 02:14 AM • permalink#16 Andrea,
That is the strangest simile I’ve ever heard.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 09 04 at 02:20 AM • permalink#17 You’re right! My little girl will be heartbroken. She never missed ‘Ol Steve on the Animal Channel. Gonna be a rough night.
#12 Mate, I think “fixing up” that ‘ray for doing what comes natural would be the last thing any Irwin would want.
#24 You said it!
The man had a mission in life, he lived it and breathed it. Like, love or hate him, the man had more guts than most and more heart, too.
Vale, Steve Irwin.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 02:25 AM • permalinkJust sent this to The Australian
Dear Editor,
Why has your online blog/letters removed posts and comments (and their histories) from the 1st of September. As I remember there was a fair bit of interest in these topics, regarding the article by Martin Chulov, not all of it positive.
Is it standard practice for you to remove these?...I have checked your terms section and the link is down. Maybe you should consider keeping an active history for others to look through.
I have noted that there are topics from before and after the 1st of September still posted.
An answer would be appreciated.
Yes Irwin certainly crystallised the issue about how we Aussies wanted to be perceived. The la-de-da’s wanted latte “sophisication” whilst I was quite happy to allow foriegners to think Steve Irwin was pretty much representative of the average Aussie.
The one small consolation is it will now have a lot more crediblity when I explain to my two little girls they are not under any circumstances to pick up a snake they might come across and not having to explain why the Crocodile Hunter IS allowed.Posted by the nailgun on 2006 09 04 at 02:48 AM • permalinkNobody should believe that the reptiles of the Australian media are, with but a few exceptions, anything other than a mob of arrogant believers in their own infallibility.
Most wouldn’t recognise the truth if was a bus and ran over them. Complaining to them, even when you point out where they are wrong with unimpeachable references, is a total waste of time and effort. If they do deign to reply it only to say that they stand by their story.
I wouldn’t p*** on them if they were on fire.
We enjoyed Mr. Irwin, though I thought he was nuts. A good kind of nuts, though. I am sorry to hear of his death. He was a good ambassador for your country, very positive. My sympathies for your country, and for his wife and children in particular.
The man did a lot of good. He’ll be missed. The good ones are too few.
About the damage done to both of those ambulances, and Mizzzzzzzzy Sarah’s attempt to rewrite history: Once again, there would be nothing left of either the ambulances or the people in them if they had been hit by missiles. How are we to begin to make sense of all the different stories? There is no way that any honest person could begin to say that anything happened based on the evidence provided. Even if Israel had committed some atrocity, no one could point to this sorry tale as evidence of anything.
The MSM has, once again, let its readers down. We so desperately need decent reporting. Too many articles are nothing more than emotional vomit spewed for the entertainment of the thoughtless.
I used to wonder how so many people in Chicago could praise Al Capone just because he handed out milk money to children. I read the praises of murderers, done in the name of a few social services, as though that wiped out the deliberate destruction of human life. I have to admit that I still don’t understand the kind of ethic that allows anyone to forgive mass murder because of bribes paid to those who were lucky enough not to be murdered. I’m so sick of thoughtless people who refuse to consider anything beyond the next five seconds.
#29 - It will be a sure test of their mission statement here - http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/more.htm
About Media Watch
Media Watch is Australia’s leading forum for media analysis and comment.Conflicts of interest, bank (Note that they can’t spell) backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud: Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989.
The media provides the information we need to make decisions about our lives, but how reliable are the media reports that shape our views of the world?
Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally “make the news”: the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and "news makers” who set the agenda.
Media Watch airs on ABC TV at 9.20pm Mondays and is repeated at 11.55pm on Wednesdays.
I’d say it qualifies
saltydog
“I have to admit that I still don’t understand the kind of ethic that allows anyone to forgive mass murder because of bribes paid to those who were lucky enough not to be murdered.”
Lucky your not in Victoria. That scathing condemnation of the entire shiarah legal system would get you in trouble.
I have had evil done by certain gentlemen explained away as “ but hes so smart he can speak 5 languages”. My response was generally “You mean can lie and shitstir in 5?”.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 03:23 AM • permalinkPlease, please, PLEASE - can we all dob in a bit and buy a digital camera for our MSM reporters in Lebanon. Even a cheapo - 2 MP, $100. Ms Smiles views the second ambulance but can but only describe it in words. But she is a journalist I suppose and not a photographer. Besides some sod might Photoshop her work before it got back to the Age. Or even after it gets back to the Age.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 09 04 at 04:14 AM • permalinkAmbulance attack, Media Watch doing a proper job and Steve. Which one did the right thing? Any primary student should be able to answer the question. I do not include most inventive news writer in the primary student category. Steve will be remembered while the others will be forgotten.
Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 09 04 at 04:15 AM • permalinkDo Manta rays have stings???
Manta Rays do not have stings.
It was not a Manta Ray. Rays have the ability to detect the primary source of the pulse (ie the heart) in their victim. The attack is akin to a rifle shot into the heart. Irwin would have died almost instantly.
It’s for this reason that I cut my line when I land a ray. They’re just too dangerous to bring into a boat.
Now waiting for that know-all dickwad, StefanK, to show up and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about:
“Oh no. It couldn’t have been a stringray. If you analyse it with your eyes shut and fingers in your ears after drinking 10 pints of Stella Artois, the only conclusion is that a dirty, stinking rotten baby eating Joo did it.”
Um, the hole in the ambulance in the above Age pic is in the wrong place, not to mention that this ambulance still appears to have some sort of assembly in the middle of the cross.
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2006 09 04 at 06:20 AM • permalinkOK I assume the ambulance in the picture is the mystery second ambulance.
Now, are they telling us a missile big enough to make a hole that size wouldn’t have completely obliterated the ambulance and incinerated anyone inside?
I won’t even start on the rust. It looks like some decrepit old ambulance that’s been sitting in a junkyard for years.
But as i’m no expert i’ll say no more.
Maybe Mythbusters could have a go at this one.
Agree Francis H
Also the paint seems to be peeling from the ambulance roof
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2006 09 04 at 06:41 AM • permalinkHa, I can safely say that that hole was not caused by a missile (of any size), dumb bomb, or artillery shell.
-No explosive at all could have been used. Due to the fact the roof is weighted downwards. (this would only be possible if there was a fire inside the vehicle that weakened the metal, this would have taken a while and left a lot of black smoke as it burned the insides away. This would also more than likely have made the fuel tank explode, something I’m pretty sure would not have happened. But as there are no scorch marks this is ruled out.
-It Cannot be small arms or heavy machine gun fire (ie 20mm rounds) as the damage is inconsistent with this type of damage.
-The rust marks in the picture have been caused by ware, and are not consistent with the damage from an air strike. They do not match shrapnel patterns. Plus they are pushed inwards rather than out (once again… no fire or explosion).
-the ambulance has gathered an incredible amount of dust in the last few weeks, that or they have used some cheap ass paint on these vehicles.
Ok she says that this is at the back of the vehicle.
-My fried owns one of these cars he tells me that the hit would almost certainly have taken out the back wheels.
It is time for them to admit they are wrong. You were tricked, apologies to Israel, and most of all The Australian can apologies to me.
(I know this is brief but I’m sick of this shit)
There is a simple explanation for this now that we have the pics of the 2 ambulances.
The holes made by the missiles are almost identical except that they are in different places in each vehicle.
The missiles were both duds and didn’t go off when they hit. Oops!! They did go off according to our on the spot witness, Qassem Shaalan. In one report he said that each ambulance was hit by 2 missiles.
Ok - next theory?
I HOPE SOMEONE DOWNLOADED THE VIDEO: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WAS MADE PRIVATE!
---
As I already posted on Dan Riehl´s page:
Another user apparently also uploaded it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nX-NzeRhU
But it´s probably a good idea to save it now.One more possible explanation (Which by no means is meant to be a “joo bashing” or “definitive answer” piece, just to say it clearly again):
http://factsfictionmiddleeast.blogspot.com/2006/09/attack-on-ambulances-on-july-13th.htmlThe photo proves nothing except Smiles’ “hole through the back” is really hole through the roof. And no one said both ambulances were struck smack in the middle of the red cross, only one of them (see ITV)
If you look at photo 16 on my blog, you can see indentation and a black hole on ambulance in the distance(Rego 777/C140). The photo today just tells me why I couldn’t see a red cross on that ambulance and why the font of the arabic script (photo 9) was different and looked “old”. (Would still love it if someone could translate the Arabic) It must be some old wreck alright. And such a devastating hit that the rear door - whether open or closed at the time - was not buckled, paint outside not even discoloured by intense heat.
I reckon the licence plate rego777 would also have an interesting multi-use history but I’m not counting on any sophisticated Hezbollah-free DMV in that part of the country.
Sad news about Steve -even though I didn’t really like his shows one of my American friends is a die hard fan. And such young kids. His death was important enough for someone at work to email the news around when it broke, which says something.
Worthy Praise for Tim Blair from Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times.
‘The only reason I know that is because the Aussie Internet maestro Tim Blair grew curious about the epidemic of incidents committed by men of no known appearance and decided to look into it.’
“Why abduct us? We cede our values for free” -another must read article from the master.#47 unfortunately for the case presented by the web site you quote the impact on the roof looks nothing like any of the pictures used. The ambulances don’t exibit any of the scalding or burn marks around the point of entry. Ofcourse the photos only show the entry damage and not the damage done inside. The operative word of the M798 HEDP isn’t dual purpose it is HIGH EXPLOSIVE. The danger radius for blast damage from a 30mm HEDP is about 30 metres if fired at the right angle. There is no indication of a high explosive projectile going off either at the point of entry (the circular blast scald pattern or smoke stain as per the photo’s) and there is certainly no evidence of shrapnel or blast going off inside the vehicle either (it would have blown out). It is a hoax, every explanation defies reality. The best way to fire a 30mm cannon to reduce collateral damage is to load a practice or inert round and they would have an exit hole after going through metal as thin as the ambulances.
Posted by platey mates on 2006 09 04 at 07:52 AM • permalinkI’d actually be surprised if this second hole is in fact twice as big as that in the other ambulance.
Look at how the camera is postioned: the hole is immediately in front of the camera and takes up a large portion of the camera’s field of view, whereas the medic (the only object in the foreground that can easily be used to judge scale) is some distance away and is cropped by the body of the ambulance and the edge of the picture, making him look much less significant. The camera being close to the roof accentuates this, creating a more pronounced ‘perspective’ effect and pushing everything except the hole into the background.
The camera is also at a slight angle - a visual trick intended to create a sense of uneasiness and discomfort in the viewer.These are photographic tricks that pre-date photoshop…
Media Watch is upset about
1) item about falling woman in The Advertiser next to an ad for skydiving;
2)Nicole Kidman’s pregnancy bump
3)Tom Cruise and Ernie (we are talking gossip magazines here folks)
4)Today Tonight and A Current Affair fighting over some story about an engagement ring (we are talking tabloid television)
5)Piers Akerman (good grief, who reads him?) not watching Play School
6)And more spat between Media Watch vs the world on “misreporting of facts” behind reasons for Jihad Jack’s squashed convictionYep.
Let me give Saint’s page a plug in the context of the new photo. As he says there’s some evidence that Smiles’ photo really is the second ambulance, rego 777.
If this is the case he also has some nice views of the interior, under the hole, so hardware enthusiasts can debate where the mystery munition might have gone. After amputating/cauterising the poor guy’s leg, of course.
The western media are in bed with the propaganda arms of ME terrorist organisations . The world Blogging community has exposed this long running sham, through exposes of numerous photographic frauds, staged managed video sequences etc etc.
it would be naive to believe that these western news agencies have merely been “conned”. There is not doubt that this is active collusion by Reuters, Ap and others to legitimize islamic terrorism .
How many nore examples do we need to come to the realisation that ME reporting by western agancies is terminally corrupt?
The MSM has purposefully ignored the exposure of this corruption except where the information is inconclusive so they can direct Ad hominem attacks at the blogosphere and accuse them of xhamateurism or conspirational theory.
The Red Cross,in this particular case have concocted this falsehood no doubt motivated by the long established hatred of Israel and maki9ng full use of their media perceived “neutrality”.
we most all congratulate the blogosphere and its astute analyses in exposing the corrupt sham of ME reporting.
And we must castigate the MSM for bringing their journalism into widespread dishonest reporting.At last we see the vent (or maybe a flashing light) that sits in the middle of the red cross on Red Cross ambulances. I saw screw holes in the unpainted ring around the perimiter of the supposed missile hole in the pictures of the other ambulance. I am not an expert in munitions and their effects but I am a mechanical engineer who has been taking things apart since childhood. It appears to me that the vent is mounted before a body shop paints the red cross on. When you take it off you see screw holes and ring lacking red paint.
Posted by Richard in Texas on 2006 09 04 at 08:41 AM • permalink#60 If you want to see a pristine version of the various rooftop appendages, you need the hi-res (6 megapixel/4Mb) image which the ICRC had on their web site and then removed. Still available various places I think.
There is an intact ambulance in the background which shows all the features very clearly.
Daniel San: I wasn’t making a “simile,” I was just remarking upon my one experience with rays (which as I think about it now, may actually have been a collection of sting rays with their stingers removed—apparently, it’s a common practice in aquariums to provide stingray petting tanks).
Re that photo: that ambulance is an old wreck from a scrap yard. If it was hit by any sort of missile it happened years ago. I’m from Florida and I know what old rusty wrecks vs. newly-damaged vehicles looks like—and believe me, the way people drive around here I get to see a lot of damaged vehicles. No, I’m not an expert, just someone with eyes.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 09:30 AM • permalinkG’day
I have looked closely at the originally released video, said by ITV to have been taken by a local Red
Cross volunteer, and apparently aired within 24 hours of the alleged attack (the reporter says “the
ambulances were hit at around midnight last night"). The ‘second’ ambulance (the one The Age’s Sarah
Smiles says Mr Fawaz was in) has no burn damage visible inside. It has much undamaged, unburnt equipment under unburnt severely ripped vehicle roof lining material. The worst ripped roof lining matches the position of the big hole in the Age Saturday 2 September.The local video does not show the roof or ceiling of the second ambulance, except for
- What might be a momentary glimpse of the ceiling, but I think it’s actually the back edge of the roof,
not the hole
- The roof seen in the distance when filming the hole in the red cross on the first ambulance. This has a dark blur that might match the hole in The Age’s 2 September photo.The combination of failure to show the roof in the video on the day and the faded, flaking red paint and severe rust in the new photo suggest that the hole in the second ambulance was rusty on 24 July, and organisers in Tyre covered this up. Certainly you would never take this ambulance out now and claim immunity because of the ‘red cross’ on the roof – it’s more grey.
I have taken some screen shots of the local video of the ‘second’ ambulance. I’ll email them to Tim.
Like the first they show:
- All side windows missing their glass (but the front and rear glass appears intact, although only shown in glimpses).
- Devastated roof lining dangling down.
- Undamaged seat upholstery, without visible litter or dirtiness at this resolution.
- Undamaged gurney and clean undamaged stretcher.
- Undamaged side linings in the rear of the ambulance.
- No exit hole in the floor or walls of the ambulance.Similar conclusions to those made about the first ambulance are reasonable:
The lack of fire damage, damage caused by shrapnel from a disintegrating projectile or missile, and lack of exit holes mean that:
- No explosive missile impacted the ambulance on July 23
- No 30mm projectile created the hole in the roof (a 30mm chain gun is the main non-missile weapon on Apache helicopters)
- No huge explosion and ball of flame occurred in the ambulanceSurprisingly for a vehicle just wrecked by an attack, it has a undamaged and fairly clean stretcher directly under the location of the hole in the roof shown in the photo
- Was this stretcher in this place at the time Mr Fawaz was so severely wounded as to lose his leg (in The Age on 2 September he is quoted as saying “I put my hand on my leg and I couldn’t feel it")
- Did Red Cross volunteers move a new stretcher into place in a wrecked ambulance?
- Did the person setting up a hoax position the equipment there?The presence of apparently undamaged & clean gurneys and stretchers in both sides of both ambulances strongly suggests that someone has arranged the props in these scenes. Who would put good stretchers back into an ambulance when there are eight seriously injured people? If the story is true, they must have removed the gurney Mr Fawaz was on when his leg was injured
- No explosive missile impacted the ambulance on July 23
- No 30mm projectile created the hole in the roof (a 30mm chain gun is the main non-missile weapon on Apache helicopters)
- No huge explosion and ball of flame occurred in the ambulance
---
Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.
If it happened that way, the round fuzed on impact (or at least was detonated on the roof), creating a fragment pattern and blast effect bending parts of the roof inward. A detonation inside the ambulance can pretty much be ruled out.
A ball of flame can be expected to have happened outside the vehicle then, with minor parts reaching the inside, together with shock, stress and concussion leading to eyewitness reports of a “fireball”.who cares about Media Watch? Tim Blair is the new Media Watch.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 04 at 10:11 AM • permalinkPeople, could you all try to use conventional quoting techniques when quoting someone for a back-and-forth? By that I mean either using the “quote” tag provided in the button bar (click once, insert the quote, then click the button again to close the tag), or else use quotation marks like “this.” It would make the argument you are trying to make (yes, I am looking at you, StefanK) less confusing to read.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 10:24 AM • permalinkFrom the high res image published by the icrc one can see that there is indeed a pattern of not rusty small marks around the vent hole which indicates an explosion on top of the roof. One should not ignore that. But as I pointed out somewhere else and as StefanK suggested above, that is consistent with both, an attack with some kind of ammunition and a staging scenario, in which someone could have detonated a hand grenade on top of the roof.
I think that one can see an overlay of two damage patterns here: an old rusty pattern and a new one I described above.
Note from the video that there are impact holes in the rear part of the roof of 782 ‘far’ away from the vent hole.
I don’t that they are consistent with a 30mm single round at the location of the vent because of the distance. Note the high res image that shows 782 from the right side. One can see there that rusty damaged areas are located in the not plane parts of the roof, ‘behind’ the bulge of the roof. I doubt that shrapnels could travel from the center of the roof to that point and penetrate the roof there.Also see the
Dahr Jamail site for some images that show the damage in the rear part of the roof[Link fixed. For God’s sake use the “preview” function. The Management.]
Re:
Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.
If it happened that way, the round fuzed on impact (or at least was detonated on the roof), creating a fragment pattern and blast effect bending parts of the roof inward. A detonation inside the ambulance can pretty much be ruled out.What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.
I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told. Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances. Such stories tell me a great deal about the people writing them, and nothing about what happened to those ambulances.
What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.
We only have very low res images of the interior, so we can´t definitely tell wether there is fragment damage or not. At least some windows have been blown out and some small “stuff” seems to be lying inside the floor of the ambulances, pointing to possible fragmentation damage.
I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told. Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances.
No doubt StefanK will be soon suggesting a trebuchetAnd I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.
No doubt you´ll just go with ad-hominem attacks, so please don´t surprised that I don´t take you serious.Sorry, messed up the quotes in the above posting, use this one instead please.
What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.
We only have very low res images of the interior, so we can´t definitely tell wether there is fragment damage or not. At least some windows have been blown out and some small “stuff” seems to be lying inside the floor of the ambulances, pointing to possible fragmentation damage.
I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told. Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances.
And I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.
No doubt StefanK will be soon suggesting a trebuchet
No doubt you´ll just go on with ad-hominem attacks, so please don´t be surprised that I don´t take you serious.
What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.
davidp is spot on. Any explosive warhead produces fragmentation, either from the casing (by design), or secondary fragmentation from the target.
Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.
A typical hand grenade tends to be small, since they are throwable. The US issue, the M61 hand grenade, for example, has 5.5 ounces of Composition B, and an effective killing range of 5 meters. It’s designed as an anti-personnel weapon.
A 60mm round, OTOH, is different. For example, the M270/888 HE round “are used against personnel, bunker and light materiel targets.” I can’t find specs on these, but I expect that the amount of Composition B in the warhead is far more than in the M61, since they are intended against more than personnel.
I bring this up, StefanK, because you compare those munitions as though they are similar. Which, in point of fact, is a load of crap. They are not similar. A hand grenade may have caused that hole in the roof. A 60mm mortar round would have, at the least, removed the roof.
And, although immaterial to my point here, in either case, the inside of the ambulance would have been peppered with shrapnel.
My point? I bring this all of this up not as a counterpoint to your arguments, but because it’s pretty clear that you are not a munitions expert, let alone someone worth listening to. No one with any military experience would have compared a hand grenade with a mortar round. Period.
In short, you’re a jabbering twit, posing as some sort of expert. Stop wasting other people’s time with your posts, as they are not worth reading.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 12:23 PM • permalink....you’re nothing but an intellectually dishonest jerk.
Thank you, murph, I was struggling for the right words to describe StefanK. You beat me to it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 12:26 PM • permalink@The_Real_JeffS
....you’re nothing but an intellectually dishonest jerk.
Thank you, murph, I was struggling for the right words to describe StefanK. You beat me to it.
If you think that there is no need to argue, to bring counterpoint to arguments, then why are you in fact doing that?
All the people posting in the respective forums are sitting thousands of kilometres away from the incident site. The war is over (well, almost). There is no immidiate need for closing the case. And at least of all there is no need to go stampede. That is exactly what the anti-Israeli media is doing. And though it seems to be contrary, there is a commonness in it: The refusal of thinking. So all one can do - all one probably should do - is to reflect on the case and the material involved, unbiased and with distance. With respect for the arguments of other people and with respect for the quality of the matter.
So if you are a hillbilly who does not know, what distance to other people and to the matter means, then you should probably stay away from such forums.
And I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.
The point people are making is that you’re spinning wildly with your only rebuttals to any criticism amounting to “yes, but, but...we don’t know with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen like I say it did”. That’s why people have been attacking your posts and their ever-more outlandishly constructed claims with Occam’s Razor. You’re behaving exactly like the mainstream media on this, trying to fit the (usually contradicting) evidence to the theory instead of the other way around.
I for one don’t care if you’re hating Jews or not (though your performance in this and the earlier thread certainly makes you a useful idiot for the Jew-hating camp), the basic point is that you’re a blustering fool.
I can’t find specs on these, but I expect that the amount of Composition B in the warhead is far more than in the M61, since they are intended against more than personnel.
You see, that is the problem with intuition, it´s sometimes wrong. I digged out the specs for the M270 60mm mortar bomb here: http://www.tpub.com/content/explosives/TM-43-0001-28/css/TM-43-0001-28_406.htm
Now look at the explosive filler weight:
M270 60mm mortar bomb: 0.42lb=190 grams
M61 handgrenade: 5.5 ounces=155 gramsAs you can see, both weapon´s explosive filler is exactly in the same ballpark, and also please note that I didn´t say “the M61 handgrenade” but “handgrenade” implying that one of a wide range of handgrenades could have been used. There are quite a few handgrenades who are heavier than the M61.
Of course, the 60mm mortar bomb will produce heavier and possibly more fragments, but both weapons are candidates for the observed damage.I bring this up, StefanK, because you compare those munitions as though they are similar. Which, in point of fact, is a load of crap. They are not similar. A hand grenade may have caused that hole in the roof. A 60mm mortar round would have, at the least, removed the roof.
Well I guess I just pointed out who talked a load of crap, didn´t I? I don´t think that you´re the one to decide what a handgrenade or 60mm mortar bomb does to a car, seeing that you had a gross misunderstanding about those weapons in the first place. What a 60mm mortar bomb does to a car for example largely depends on which fuze (and with which settings) is used.
And, although immaterial to my point here, in either case, the inside of the ambulance would have been peppered with shrapnel.
Again, this is a far to broad statement. Depending on the round, with a detonation atop the roof, fragmentation inside the car doesn´t have to be significant.
Stop wasting other people’s time with your posts, as they are not worth reading.
You know, you are neither forced to read nor forced to reply to my posts. I, for one, will decide for myself when and when not to post.
This was to be history in the making; a truly diabolical occurrence. Every single one of an as yet uncertain number of ambulances was to be hit at precisely the same moment.
It was the perfect plan… until some careless operator at the Zionist Space Laser targeting console bumped the lightspeed skew control just before flash set. This in turn changed the differential exit flex enough for some of the targeted bursts to leave the emitter locus at greater than light speed.
One of the ambulances is undeniably older and more weathered. It was simply hit by the same shot many years earlier.
If you think that there is no need to argue, to bring counterpoint to arguments, then why are you in fact doing that?
Because I loathe psuedo-experts, that’s why. I tagged StefanK for probably being one a while back, but I waited to see just how far he dug his hole. Pretty deep, it turns out.
The point people are making is that you’re spinning wildly with your only rebuttals to any criticism amounting to “yes, but, but...we don’t know with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen like I say it did”.
I, personnally, am doing no such thing. I accept that this is a hoax, created for propaganda reasons. No evidence to the contrary has been presented.
StefanK, OTOH, offers his alternate explanation, fails to make his case....and keeps on pushing it anyway, changing his story in an attempt to negate or ignore valid criticisms. That’s not serious debate, that’s an obsession.
The refusal of thinking.
Just so. StefanK is merely adding to the noise level on this discussion, taking away from the main point by harping on weapon systems he clearly doesn’t understand. He refuses to think about what he is doing....and why.
So all one can do - all one probably should do - is to reflect on the case and the material involved, unbiased and with distance. With respect for the arguments of other people and with respect for the quality of the matter.
“Unbiased and with distance”? Well, in one way, I wish that it were so, although I question the need for “distance”. This hoax discussion wouldn’t have flared up in Australian newspapers, for one thing, and the ICRC wouldn’t be a group of partisan hacks.
OTOH, I would like to point out the objective analysis offered in many blogs, including this one. By “objective”, I mean “unbiased”, in terms of looking at the facts before coming to a conclusion. Something that StefanK seems to be ignoring—he may offer only a technical conclusion, as opposed to a political one, but he remains guilty of being subjective. But he continues to spin his tale, even when it has been discredited in several ways.
That’s why I’m ignoring him.....after giving him several chances to come around.
So if you are a hillbilly who does not know, what distance to other people and to the matter means, then you should probably stay away from such forums.
Hmmm!!! I called StefanK a twit and a jerk, strictly a personal insult, and you refer to me as a hillbilly, an ethnic slur. Hmmmm.....am I white? Do I live in the hills, and eschew the doiminant culture? Or are you speaking metaphorically because I don’t embrace the “No one knows what happened, so we shouldn’t lean either way!” meme espoused by the infamous MrLefty? It’s not conclusive, but I’ve noticed that people who lean far left politically tend to be quicker with etchnic and racial slurs than people closer to the center. Either that or they are simply too arrogant to worry about being a bigot. Take that as you will.
As for “distance”.....being truly unbiased means accepting the facts as facts, and evaluating them unemotionally. It strikes me that StefanK is unable to detach himself from this specific aspect of the issue...and it is distracting to the adults, who want to have a real converstation.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 01:41 PM • permalink#72, Saltydog: I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.
This seems to be a parallel effort as that engaged in by Mary Mapes/Dan Rather to find some kind of printing implement-anything!-that would have been available in 1971 and been capable of exactly reproducing M/S Word format.
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 09 04 at 01:53 PM • permalinkI accept that this is a hoax, created for propaganda reasons. No evidence to the contrary has been presented.
You see, that is the whole problem. You not only accept that it´s a hoax, you insist on it and react irrational to anyone pointing out the remote possibility that the IDF (or by now even explosive ordnance) could have been involved.
In fact, there is no proof that we´re dealing with a hoax, there´s just the fact that “it could have been done with a sledgehammer” and some contradicting reports by the media, who are known to report crap “once in a while”.
The only thing certain so far ist that the media talked biased crap and presented facts which were none.
I, for one, am open to proof and arguments from all sides and for all theories, but until new evidence emerges I don´t think we can draw the “it´s a hoax”, case closed, conclusion from some low-res videos and contradicting media reports.
To me, a IDF attack, a purposefull use of explosives, as well as 2 days time and a sledgehammer all remain very possible scenarios with the current available information.@Bruce Lagasse and others
#72, Saltydog: I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.
This seems to be a parallel effort as that engaged in by Mary Mapes/Dan Rather to find some kind of printing implement-anything!-that would have been available in 1971 and been capable of exactly reproducing M/S Word format.
With some distance one could have recognized that the theory of using a hand grenade or some other small explosive device such as a mortar round points to a possible modus operandi of a possible staging. StefanK made his posting 4 hours ago. I posted thoughts about using a hand grenade in several forums including Riehl World some days ago. I pointed out above that there in fact seem to be traces of a recent explosion on top of the roof of 782 which has to be explained.
Reading this all now is really a frightening experience for me.
It’s been touched upon, but worth expanding:
Standard junkyard practice is to remove the wheel and tires [quite saleable] and stack the hulks two or three high.
When an important part is wanted, they are unstacked and re-stacked. This causes the roofs to be caved-in, and holes in the corners are from the naked brake rotors of the top hulk being pressed against the roof of the lower hulk.
A rolled-over vehicle will have a different look, the rear hatch will get un-square and the edges will be marred.
Don’t ask how I know all this....
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 09 04 at 02:31 PM • permalinkOkay, so it was a drone F16 that dropped a handgrenade on the rusty old ambulance, and the Lebanese swapped out the burned and shrapnel-ridden interior for for one without obvious signed of explosive damage. See, the press was right along.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 09 04 at 02:56 PM • permalinkI posted thoughts about using a hand grenade in several forums including Riehl World some days ago.
<snip>
Reading this all now is really a frightening experience for me.
That’s not frightening. You and StefanK are terrifying, though. From an educational perspective, anyway.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:55 PM • permalinkDon’t ask how I know all this....
We won’t!!! :-D
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:56 PM • permalinkOkay, so it was a drone F16 that dropped a handgrenade on the rusty old ambulance, and the Lebanese swapped out the burned and shrapnel-ridden interior for for one without obvious signed of explosive damage. See, the press was right along.
An excellent synopsis, Bruce! Hopefully Reuters or AP will sign you as an editor....
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:58 PM • permalinkStephenK:
You continue to offer your idea of what could have caused the damage to those ambulances. What made you think about the damage to those vehicles in the first place? It was stories—plural—that Israel deliberately targeted ambulances, which is a war crime and one of the most serious accusations that can be made against a country.
If the damage isn’t consistent with any of the stories given, which stories are why you are questioning anything in the first place, why do you come up with alternates? When there has been one hoax after another, when the majority of the media around the world has shown themselves to be firmly on one side of the argument in the ME, when the propaganda is this war plays a pivotal role in the war itself, why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to come up with something that could fit the scenario that Israel is to blame; i.e., why insist that Israel had anything to do with those ambulances in the absence of any objective evidence?
Your protestations of neutrality, much less objectivity, ring hollow. You do not start with one idea and try to fit the facts to that idea if you are being objective. Objectivity (and neutrality) demands that you define what the facts of the case are before coming to any conclusion. We’ve been told so many stories that determining the facts is now absolutely impossible. In that case, one doesn’t not sit and posit one theory after another based on nothing more than mere assertions. One dismisses it all. One certainly does not continue to argue for one’s favorite theory in the face of these facts unless one has a reason that has nothing to do with what actually happened. I don’t know if you are anti-Semitic or simply attempting self-aggrandizement, and I don’t really care. Your posts still attempt to point to an accusation of a war crime against Israel. That requires more than adding your assertions to all the others, whatever your reasons.
Irwin was a conservative green...Oh, great, now you tell me. I’ve written some scathing shite about him being the progenitor of all these awful animal interaction “eco-tours” springing up everywhere where people contact their inner beings and challenge themselves by annoying, bothering, freaking out, pestering, stressing and generally behaving badly with wild creatures who really just want to be left alone. I’m a wild critter stalker meself, but I never do more than look with my binoculars. If one of my mates, all of whom are natural scientists and researchers down there in Oz, grab on for a quick check for a ring on a goana’s leg or whatever, that’s one thing. But the other just bothers me. But now you tell me he’s a Howard fan. Crikey. Put me in a bad light, guys. You have. Do I retract my remarks on purely political grounds? (thinks thinks thinks smokes smokes smokes coughs coughs cough...) No. I don’t. Wish I could but…
If the damage was done by a handgrenade or a mortar then i would imagine that would pretty much rule-out Israel doing it. As far as I’m aware the ambulance wasn’t hanging around territory that was controlled on the ground by the Israelis. I don’t know about delivering handgrenades any way but by hand but i imagine that regardless the range isnt very far.
Looking at the specs for the mortar it has a maximum range of just under three and a half ikilometres. Again, i don’t think the Israeli’s were anywhere near that close to where the ambulance was. And if it was a mortar fired from that distance then it rules out deliberate targeting anyway.
Stefan says: “In fact, there is no proof that we´re dealing with a hoax.”
Like The_Real_JeffS [#82] and others here, I find StefanK’s elaborate justifications tiresome because he is obsessively focused on his small area of partial knowledge.
My belief long ago was that the the ‘two ambulance attack’ was an elaborate setup using various ambulances damaged or wrecked earlier in conditions unknown.
Now, many weeks later -after the hoaxers have had time to re-group and bolster their very weak stories, naive Sarah Smiles is taken to a yard to see one of ‘the’ ambulances, which could have had an enlarged hole put in it just for her. She didn’t even describe it correctly and missed the very heavy rust. She’s just an ignorant patsy out of her league.The theory of hoax is virtually proven now by TWO heavily rusted tops.
Stefan completely ignores this telling evidence of hoax [claiming it’s for others to determine -they have!]], given the time factors and secretive control of all photography in this case.Now, could we assume that the latest ‘Smiles ambulance’ was indeed hit by an Israeli [deliberate or accidental] attack? Yes, it is known that they hit an RC ambulance at least once some time ago, in circumstances when it was clear it was being used by terrorists. Is this it? No-one an be sure.
But is this the reason the recent hoax was prepared? Yes. The idea of Israelis attacking ambulances makes excellent new propaganda.
That’s the reality, Stefan. Deal with it first before offering your expertise to the accepted enemy.#84 To me, a IDF attack, a purposefull use of explosives, as well as 2 days time and a sledgehammer all remain very possible scenarios with the current available information.—Posted by StefanK
But here’s what the fuss is about Stefan. The MSM didn’t publish articles stating that it was a possible scenario. They stated that Israel did it. Period. This reflects a biased mindset and shoddy reporting methods. This simply has to change.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 04 at 06:45 PM • permalinkExcuse me, harris? Why have you signed up using my last name when your email indicates that you are from Germany, and your syntax indicates that English is not your native tongue? “Harris” is not a German name. You’ve started out here by breaking the code of the page—I had to fix it—and using ethnic slurs to insult people (unless you didn’t know that “hillbilly” is considered an insult in America). So right away I am suspicious of you. Answer, please.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 06:47 PM • permalinkAnd as to the wrecks being used as “proof” of these attacks—I repeat, anyone with half a brain who has seen more than one car in their life knows that those are old wrecks, that have not been driven anywhere for years. So it doesn’t matter what happened to them or who did it. Anyone who believes this story now is either lying or too stupid to be let out on the street without a leash.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 06:50 PM • permalinkYou continue to offer your idea of what could have caused the damage to those ambulances.
Yes, exactly the same thing numerous other people are doing.
What made you think about the damage to those vehicles in the first place?
-Eyewhitness reports who have in common that the ambulance was attacked by “something”.
-The fact that a war was going on with israeli aircraft targetting Hezbollah assets.
-The pattern of the damage, suggesting a strike from above.
The above factors suggest that, among others, an accidental attack by the IDF remains a possibility (just like a deliberate bombing by Hezbollah, Red Cross workers etc.).It was stories—plural—that Israel deliberately targeted ambulances
So? If some media dipshits report such things that doesn´t mean I agree with them.
If the damage isn’t consistent with any of the stories given, which stories are why you are questioning anything in the first place, why do you come up with alternates?
Because it just makes sense to look in all directions. Looking into just one, drawing some conclusions and calling it a day is easy, but wrong IMHO. We´re very far from any proof for any theory, so looking in all directions makes sense.
when the majority of the media around the world has shown themselves to be firmly on one side of the argument in the ME, when the propaganda is this war plays a pivotal role in the war itself, why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to come up with something that could fit the scenario that Israel is to blame;
Look, the media spouting out hyperbole and wrong accusations of deliberate attacks by the IDF doesn´t automatically mean that the IDF didn´t accidentaly attack the ambulance. It also doesn´t automatically mean that the whole thing was a big hoax, but just that the media is biased and not doing their job well.
What the media reports and what really happened are different things, connecting both doesn´t make sense.
why insist that Israel had anything to do with those ambulances in the absence of any objective evidence?
Once again for the 32432nd time: I don´t insist on “israel having anything to do with the ambulances”, I´m pointing out the possibility of that being the case.
That certainly is no stretch, considering that there was a war going on and the IDF was rightfully searching for targets in the area of the ambulances.
The reason I point that out? Many people around the blogosphere are so focused on the whole hoax stuff because of the bad media reports that they have become blind for other possible scenarios, so my intention is to remind people to look in all directions again.Your protestations of neutrality, much less objectivity, ring hollow.
I never said I was neutral, I said I support Israel´s struggle for survival and that I consider the recent war rightful self-defense.
You do not start with one idea and try to fit the facts to that idea if you are being objective.
I did not do that, I looked at the damage of the ambulance and considered possible scenarios for the events that could have led to this damage. In the end the damage looks consistent with the detonation of a small to medium size HE round, like explained above.
Wether it was such a HE round fired by an aircraft, deliberately placed there, or a guy with a sledgehammer, is unknown, but all these scenarios have something going for them, and something going against them.We’ve been told so many stories that determining the facts is now absolutely impossible.
Good that you´re saying this, I think we can agree here. We can´t determine the facts, therefore we have to consider a broad range of scenarios, if we want to consider scenarios. That´s all what I´m saying.
In that case, one doesn’t not sit and posit one theory after another based on nothing more than mere assertions. One dismisses it all.
This of course, is not what is happening in large parts of the blogosphere. Instead, many people are totally convinced that it´s all a hoax, even though that is not based on facts, but a bunch of assertions.
One certainly does not continue to argue for one’s favorite theory in the face of these facts unless one has a reason that has nothing to do with what actually happened.
Like I said, I consider it of importance to keep all possible scenarios in mind, when there is no sufficient proof for one. Therefore, I consider it necessary to describe the one scenario that is automatically dismissed (for whatever reason) by many people.
continued..
..
Your posts still attempt to point to an accusation of a war crime against Israel. That requires more than adding your assertions to all the others, whatever your reasons.
If one of the possible scenarios involves an accidental shooting of the ambulances by the IDF, then this is regrettable. But disregarding a possible scenario because it is not convenient certainly doesn´t meet the criteria for objectivity you stated above.
Until we know more (which is doubtful to ever be the case) a israeli attack remains as likely or unlikely as any other theory.I guess Media Watch could have tackled whether or not false reporting helped alter the course of a war and or whether Australia’s Foreign Minister was wrongly influenced by a blog, but Nicole being pregnant was obviously the bigger story on the day…
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 04 at 07:05 PM • permalinkStefan, you’re missing the forest because you’re focusing on the freaking moss. The press propogated the claim that the ambulances were intentionally attacked by missiles. The “evidence” presented by them makes that claim laughable. Rather than admit they screwed up, they’ve been shifting their story—often in ways that contradict both the earlier claims and their new claims.
Is it possible those ambulances were damaged by a weapon?
Sure. But that doesn’t matter; that’s not the issue. The issue is the willingness of the press to spread—and defend—lies.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 04 at 07:06 PM • permalinkMEDIA WATCH DEAL WITH HOAXERS!
Got your attention.
1. Hoax One: Does Nicole Kidman really have a ‘bun in the oven’?
2. Hoax Two: Did Tom Cruise win a sexist award for a remark that he didn’t make?Good grief. And they have the absolute gall to refer to the ABC online gossip section called The Shallow End.
Surely this is their last year...
StefanK: We´re very far from any proof for any theory, so looking in all directions makes sense.
Wrong twice, Stefan. The hoax theory is only ‘far from proven’ to the MSM and yourself, not good company to keep in this badly-reported war.
Looking in all directions is what a desperate man does when getting shot at from all sides [appropriate metaphor]
Sure. But that doesn’t matter; that’s not the issue. The issue is the willingness of the press to spread—and defend—lies.
Well that willingness has been established pretty firmly by now.
To me (and some other people) what really happened also remains an issue though, this is what most of my posts are about.Hand grenade or mortar dropping drone or F16?
Geez I knew they were hard up for munitions but this....Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 07:29 PM • permalinkWrong twice, Stefan. The hoax theory is only ‘far from proven’ to the MSM and yourself, not good company to keep in this badly-reported war.
To me it rather looks like the hoax theory is only proven to some “hardcore believers” who are willing to accept many assertions as “fact”.
Looking in all directions is what a desperate man does when getting shot at from all sides
I´d say a desperate man would rather hit the deck or get the **** outta the place he´s in, but nice metaphor nevertheless ;)
Hand grenade or mortar dropping drone or F16?
Geez I knew they were hard up for munitions but this..The scenarios involving handgrenades of mortar attacks obviously describes deliberate bombings of the ambulance by Hezbollah or someone else, e.g. an “inside job” (or very strange accidents).
g´nite btw :)
StephenK, just because others are positing theories based on the assertions of doesn’t mean that you must come up with one of your own. There is difference between saying that something happened in the midst of battle, and disputing those assertions and demanding actual evidence. The point of the entire exercise is to show that there is nothing that can be validated as evidence of anything, much less a war crime. It makes no difference that you are on the side of Israel in this, any more than if you were on the side of terrorists. A lack of verifiable evidence is a lack of verifiable evidence, no matter which side you are on. All we have are the ever changing and suspect stories of the enemy, the ICRC (who is suspect because of their own, long-standing attitudes and practices in the region), and a demonstrably biased, gullible, and ignorant media.
I do not attempt to refute your contentions because they are not evidence of anything. That they were supposedly missile hits isn’t something that anyone refuting the stories made up. That IS the story; that it is a deliberate policy of “the pious” of Israel to target ambulances IS the story. If it were not, there wouldn’t have been a story in the first place.
You may have the best intentions in the world, as you see it. But there is a fundamental difference between positing what may have happened, and debunking a hoax—which is saying that nothing happened. When there is a question of something as serious as a war crime involved, you must abide by strict standards of evidence. Saying that a hand-grenade might have been used (by whom?), when the story is that a missile was deliberately fired at an ambulance in an instance of a war crime, doesn’t add to the discussion, but merely confuses the issue.
Excuse me, harris? Why have you signed up using my last name when your email indicates that you are from Germany, and your syntax indicates that English is not your native tongue? “Harris” is not a German name. You’ve started out here by breaking the code of the page—I had to fix it—and using ethnic slurs to insult people (unless you didn’t know that “hillbilly” is considered an insult in America). So right away I am suspicious of you. Answer, please.
That are really suspicious moments. First I buggered the code of a link...Did my apology make it even more suspicious? :-)
I don’t see a reason for justifying my choice of the screenname. But I can assure you that it is not related to your name.
I’m pretty aware of the fact that ‘hillbilly’ is an insult. As well as ‘Hinterwäldler’ in German. Do you think that I did not use it appropriately in this case?
And finally: Why are you publishing details of my registration? You are not entitled to do that, as far as I can see.
Detachment is a valuable achievement.
And soemhow it seems to be really missing in this forum.Andrea: “No, I’m not an expert, just someone with eyes.”
Touché.
What we have in Big Media are not people with eyes but people with agendas. Who prefer to get the “story” from people with similar agendas.
When the second lot tell the first lot a pack of lies, they KNOW they won’t be cross-examined. And they’re getting very good at knowing just the kind of lies to tell.
When the lies change, the stories change. Anyone can see that the ambulances exhibited in videos and photos were not struck by missiles or rockets (a burst of automatic fire for effect, maybe--see the footprints visible on the roof dust at zombie). They were not “entirely destroyed” or “mangled,” and no “fire” or “explosion” occurred inside either of them (or any of them, since it’s quite possible we’ve been shown three or more ambulances).
The only thing all the constantly re-tailored stories have in common is: Israel deliberately (or maybe accidentally, but still evilly) hit one or was it two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances.
i.e. Israel commits war crimes.
What the eyes see don’t matter--the MSM serve a higher god, the god of truthiness. And he HATES Israel.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 04 at 08:06 PM • permalinkI am prepared to cut StefanK a little slack (although ‘harris’ is just cruising for a bruising).
What has happened here is what often happens to young trial lawyers. He has fallen in love with his theory and is reacting to (justifiable) criticism in the same way a young man reacts to people who call his new girlfriend homely.
StefanK appears to have reached his conclusion by assuming that the witnesses were merely mistaken and not dishonest. So from that starting point he has taken the obvious point that if the ambulances were in fact hit by a missile they would be toast and gone looking for an possible munition which could have caused the damage claimed.
He alights on his favourite round and if I understand his argument comes to this conclusion by comparing a photograph on the manufacturers website with one of the ambulance photographs. Now this is IMHO a particularly dangerous leap of faith because i. I seriously doubt that the hole shown on the manufacturers website was of vehicle sheet metal (armour piercing rounds should you know be shown piercing armour) and ii. The hole in the ambulance was where a ventilator was and which would logically be less resistant to any projectile/explosive hitting it than the surrounding sheet metal.
However he then has to still account for the missing leg and that is where
Is Sarah Smiles twelve-years-old, or are Age journalists encouraged to write for upper primary school students?