2 Sides Sharply Split on How Israelis Killed 7 at Gaza Camp

[Mycroft]

I forget which thread it was, but in one of them some people were outraged that Israeli missiles targeted a car and civilians were killed in the blast.

This account tells a different story.

Yet, after the missile strike, one of five Israeli air attacks on Monday, brought unusual criticism from within Israel, the Air Force took the rare step of showing reporters video footage it said was taken of the incident by a drone overhead.

The black-and-white images, which the drone transmitted live to commanders directing the helicopter crew that fired the missiles, showed a first missile striking a car traveling an empty street.

The car, which Israel said was carrying Hamas militants, continued for about 50 yards until it appeared to bump a curb. Then it backed up almost to its original spot. A single person appeared to be approaching when the car was destroyed in a direct hit by a second missile. The strikes were a minute apart.

It was at least 90 seconds after the second blast that dozens of people were seen leaving their houses to surround the wreckage. Moments later, the footage ended. The senior Air Force officer who had presented it said there was nothing more of interest to see.

"We would not allow any munition to be launched on a massive gathering of people," the officer said. "To fire into a crowd is not professional, it is not ethical and it's not moral."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/international/middleeast/21CND-MIDEAS.html?ex=1067400000&en=48666249db50638e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[a_unique_person]

Israeli military officers say that it is the militants who endanger Palestinian civilians by hiding among them.



There is somewhere else for them to hide?

[a_unique_person]

one of five Israeli air attacks on Monday



There were five strikes. One of them was claimed to have involved civilian casualties. I presume the others then did not have many/any. How do we know the film is of the same incident?

[Mr Manifesto]

Gosh, where's your credulity a_u_p?

I saw the footage and couldn't tell one way or another if there were a crowd of people on the street. I imagine someone would have noticed if there were. However, the bomb blast was close to buildings. The shockwave from the bomb would be enough to kill people in the buildings, unless it was a specialised car-destroying-only bomb that I haven't heard of.

Assuming this is the footage of the incident the Palestinians were referring to, of course.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There were five strikes. One of them was claimed to have involved civilian casualties. I presume the others then did not have many/any. How do we know the film is of the same incident?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard. Videotape of the incident? It could be faked, it could be a different incident, it may have been filmed in Turkey or South America.

I don't even know there was an attack. I only have the television, the internet and newspapers to tell me that. All that could be faked.

I don’t really know that there is an Israel. I learned about it mostly from the same newspapers and television that tell me there was an attack. The books, the people I know who have been there, they could all be part of a conspiracy to misdirect me.

I don’t know that the world exists. I’ve seen The Matrix, maybe my body is wired to a machine that simulates the world. How do I know that’s not reality? Maybe my memory of the movie is a hallucination of my subconscious mind trying to tell me the true nature of reality.

Cogito ergo sum. Okay, I know I exist because I think. I got that much…

Kidding aside, I agree that skepticism is a good thing. One should always look closely at evidence provided, I know I do.

At the same time, if you reject evidence out of hand without specific evidence of fakery, that’s a pretty serious prejudice you’re betraying.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


:roll: :roll: :roll:

No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard. Videotape of the incident? It could be faked, it could be a different incident, it may have been filmed in Turkey or South America.


The point is that the report said there were several eye-witnesses with the same story, in direct contradiction of the version supplied by the IDF.

The IDF never seems to accept responsibility for anything. It must be the only army in the world that never makes a mistake or commits an atrocity.

Yet, IDF airforce pilots have resigned rather than be ordered to do the things that the IDF supposedly never does.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


:roll: :roll: :roll:

No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard. Videotape of the incident? It could be faked, it could be a different incident, it may have been filmed in Turkey or South America.

I don't even know there was an attack. I only have the television, the internet and newspapers to tell me that. All that could be faked.

I don’t really know that there is an Israel. I learned about it mostly from the same newspapers and television that tell me there was an attack. The books, the people I know who have been there, they could all be part of a conspiracy to misdirect me.

I don’t know that the world exists. I’ve seen The Matrix, maybe my body is wired to a machine that simulates the world. How do I know that’s not reality? Maybe my memory of the movie is a hallucination of my subconscious mind trying to tell me the true nature of reality.

Cogito ergo sum. Okay, I know I exist because I think. I got that much…

Kidding aside, I agree that skepticism is a good thing. One should always look closely at evidence provided, I know I do.

At the same time, if you reject evidence out of hand without specific evidence of fakery, that’s a pretty serious prejudice you’re betraying.

When you've finished your rant I would like to know if you are claiming that israeli assasinations by missile strikes on cars don't kill bystanders? Are the reports I read about deaths, including women and children false?

[ImpyTimpy]

Nobody said the footage is fake. That's your very own strawman you're building and attacking right there. How about you actually address the raised points?

Originally posted by Mycroft


:roll: :roll: :roll:

No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard. Videotape of the incident? It could be faked, it could be a different incident, it may have been filmed in Turkey or South America.

I don't even know there was an attack. I only have the television, the internet and newspapers to tell me that. All that could be faked.

I don’t really know that there is an Israel. I learned about it mostly from the same newspapers and television that tell me there was an attack. The books, the people I know who have been there, they could all be part of a conspiracy to misdirect me.

I don’t know that the world exists. I’ve seen The Matrix, maybe my body is wired to a machine that simulates the world. How do I know that’s not reality? Maybe my memory of the movie is a hallucination of my subconscious mind trying to tell me the true nature of reality.

Cogito ergo sum. Okay, I know I exist because I think. I got that much…

Kidding aside, I agree that skepticism is a good thing. One should always look closely at evidence provided, I know I do.

At the same time, if you reject evidence out of hand without specific evidence of fakery, that’s a pretty serious prejudice you’re betraying.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool

When you've finished your rant I would like to know if you are claiming that israeli assasinations by missile strikes on cars don't kill bystanders?

Did I say that? What did I say?

This is a new thread, you won't have to scroll very far to check.

Originally posted by The Fool
Are the reports I read about deaths, including women and children false?

Does false information ever make it into the news? When it happens, where does it come from? How does it happen?

Sometimes when I follow the news, I notice things. A big new story makes the headlines and gets a lot of air time. Often when a big story breaks, the first reports are not very accurate.

Later on, when the story is more developed, better information comes along. But this information doesn't get the same headlines and air time as the initial reports. Sometimes this new information doesn't get very much attention at all if another big story breaks.

Do people die in war? Of course they do. You don't need me to affirm that.

If you want to know and understand the truth, you can't depend on me for it. I will never lie to you, but if you depend on someone else, anyone else, to do your thinking for you then you will never understand. These are not simple issues, even if we talk about them as if they are.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Did I say that? What did I say?

This is a new thread, you won't have to scroll very far to check.





Ok, I didn't scroll very far and I found that you said "this account tells a different story" and then sited evidence that a number of missiles they have fired have not killed bystanders....Fair enough, point taked. I Accept that not every missile they have fired has killed bystanders..... So, whats your point? As you say, its still a new thread, you could tell us the point you want to make and still have it fairly close to the top of the thread.

If , as I have said... your point is that not every missile fired kills people then I think this thread is going to end with a general round of agreement. Has anyone suggested that they all do?

[Skeptic]

No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard.

Which AUP inevitably does, when the proof seems to exonerate israel. When it's the other way around, of course, even a private internet site by an unknown author is "evidence" of "israeli crimes"...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No matter what proof is offered, you can always demand a higher standard.

Which AUP inevitably does, when the proof seems to exonerate israel. When it's the other way around, of course, even a private internet site by an unknown author is "evidence" of "israeli crimes"...
If you could take a break from your A_U_P fixation could you point out what "proof" you are talking about? As I have said, a video tape showing 2 missiles that apparently did not kill bystanders is evidence that not all missiles fired have killed bystanders...Is that the point you are trying to make "skeptic"? are you denying these strikes kill bystanders? Or are you simply exonerating Israel yet again? After all...they were aiming at the cars right? If they hit bystanders then thats just tough luck eh?

Some Palestinians commit terror bombings.
Israel retaliates...fair enough. Do you think the IDF should care about killing bystanders during its retaliations? I believe they, and you, could not care less....they are all evil and bloodthirsty anyway, right "skeptic"?

[a_unique_person]

More on that video.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631568188.html?from=storyrhs



An Israeli military official has acknowledged that an air force videotape appears to show Palestinians gathering in an alley near the site of a helicopter strike in the Gaza Strip, and that their presence could account for the high casualty toll in a missile attack on Monday.

....

Israel said the tape, taken by an overhead drone, refuted Palestinian claims that a helicopter crew had fired the second missile into civilians who approached the car after it was first hit. Palestinians said that seven people were killed and many more were wounded.

Reporters were able to scrutinise the tape on Wednesday. Initially it seems to support the Israeli account that a helicopter fired both missiles at a car on an empty street. But close viewing of the grainy black-and-white tape appears to show people rushing into an alley near the car after the first missile was fired and before the second missile struck about a minute later.

"It seems to me there may be people in the alleyway," an Israeli military official acknowledged. "It's possible this is the cause for all the casualties."

The official said the military did not detect the figures in the alley until later.
.........

Initially, the Palestinians in the alley are difficult to see, but when a black cloud of smoke dissipates after the second strike, the figures become clearer. They flee along the alley, away from the blast. Counting people is difficult, but it appears there could be dozens, which is in line with the accounts of Palestinian witnesses. While the drone has a good view of the broad street, it has blind spots.



So, the reason is that the drone did not give as clear a view of the events as was first stated, however, close inspection of the tape supports the statements of the eye witnesses.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
More on that video.

So, the reason is that the drone did not give as clear a view of the events as was first stated, however, close inspection of the tape supports the statements of the eye witnesses.

Interesting choice of edits you made. You quoted the entire article minus two paragraphs. The first cut I can understand, the paragraph was just a recap adding no new information and no important contextual information, but the second paragraph you cut seems relevant:

A senior air force official said the helicopter crew had been authorised to fire a second missile because the car provided a clear target with no other Palestinians visible.

Which the video also supports.

[a_unique_person]

I was trying to keep to the 'fair comment' limits.

[Skeptic]

Interesting choice of edits you made. You quoted the entire article minus two paragraphs. The first cut I can understand, the paragraph was just a recap adding no new information and no important contextual information, but the second paragraph you cut seems relevant:

Ah, yes, AUP with his "selective" editing... the David Irving of the JREF forum.