KANA - "Israel not to blame" [Archive]

webfusion

30th July 2006, 04:46 PM

An initial IDF inquiry has revealed that Israel may not have been to blame for the explosion that killed more than 50 civilians in the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Kana on Sunday.
--- http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108783

Air Force Commander Amir Eshel left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists blew up the building or that an unknown cause set off explosives which were stored in the structure.

Whadda ya know -- Israel might not have caused that building to explode after all. Another deal like the Gaza beach tragedy which wasn't Israel's fault.

Azure

30th July 2006, 04:49 PM

webfusion

30th July 2006, 05:09 PM

Who besides the Israeli military has information about what the IAF was doing and when?

It's like the gaza beach --- the IDF said it wasn't firing from the naval ships offshore at that time. The palestinians showed video of naval ships firing, to 'support' their claim.

An independent forensics investigation of the fragments of shrapnel (removed from gaza victims in Israeli hospitals) determined they were conclusively not 155mm. The palestinians said they were 155mm (and they produced a huge stockpile of leftover 155mm fragments to 'illustrate' their claim) .

The IAF has video -- I wanna see it.
Be patient, we'll get to see it.

Azure

30th July 2006, 05:21 PM

Mephisto

30th July 2006, 05:26 PM

Who gets the blame for the video of all the people in bunkers or rubble right now? I can't tell if they're Palestinian or Israeli. They're the ones that suffer most.

Pardalis

30th July 2006, 05:30 PM

Unless real evidence is found, I think this sounds very unlikely.

It reminds me of the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theories of 9/11. :rolleyes:

Leif Roar

30th July 2006, 05:55 PM

I'm not going to jump all over this story and show it to all my Israeli blaming forum friends.

Not because I disagree, but some people have a problem with statements coming from the Israeli military.

Speaking generally, I'm dubious of statements from any military that finds itself or its soldiers innocent or blameless. Both because of the obvious conflict of interest of any body that investigates itself, and because military organisations are particularely vulnerable to "looking after their own" because of the emotional ties that exist within a military organisation, both vertically along the command structure (ties of loyalty and resposibility) and horizontally within a unit (ties of "blood-tested friendships" and unit cohesion.) I also consider other organisations with similar structures and where the emotioanl ties are similarly strengthened by shared dangers, such as police forces or fire fighting units, to be poor at introspective investigations of this kind.

Now, speaking of this particular statement, I see no reason to be particularly doubtful of it, mostly because it actually says very little (and a great deal less than some of the posters on this thread seems to believe it does.) The statement does not exonerate IDF for all or part of the responsibility for the explosion, not does it actually offer any evidence against the IDF being responsible for the explosion. The statement is actually limited to saying that the evidence, as gathered and evaluated at this time, does not conclusively prove that the IDF is responsible. I.e. it's only saying "It's not beyond doubt that the IDF didn't cause it" and it's not saying "there's reason to believe the IDF did not cause this." The title of this thread, KANA - "Israel not to blame, is not an accurate description of the statement.

webfusion

30th July 2006, 06:20 PM

Who gets the blame for the video of all the people in bunkers or rubble right now? I can't tell if they're PalestinianLebanese or Israeli. They're the ones that suffer most.

Corrected your comment --- but your point is the same, as there is also video of palestinians in gaza who are being bombed by the IDF, and photos of Israelis in Sderot who are being bombed by the palestinians with Qassems, and the news media just runs video after video scece, with no captioning and no contextual definitions, it all just runs together in one huge "film noir"

webfusion

30th July 2006, 07:08 PM

Leif Roar is absolutely on-target.

The thread title is not an accurate quote of what the IDF is saying.

It is only what I'm saying --- I am of the opinion that Hezbollah had their munitions in the building and they blew up much later, after the strike caused a fire that eventually reached the munitions.

Pardalis -- what sounds unlikely? That the Hezbollah is to blame for having stored explosives in this building that went "BOOM" a few hours after the IDF raid? According to the IDF, the sites targeted were houses occupied by Hezbollah cells that launched Katyusha rockets into Israel in recent days.
They do store their munitions in basements of buildings, and the IDF has been bombing these storehouses and depots for a few weeks now all over Lebanon, or have you missed all that?

The Fool

30th July 2006, 09:19 PM

gumboot

30th July 2006, 09:43 PM

Unless real evidence is found, I think this sounds very unlikely.

It reminds me of the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theories of 9/11. :rolleyes:

Although it seems the actual events are as yet indetermined...

Why does this sound very unlikely? Hizbollah are operating from within the civilian population, yes? They must store their munitions somewhere, yes?

We will have to wait for video, of course.

Any video showing a secondary explosion closes this case for good.

-Andrew

peptoabysmal

30th July 2006, 10:18 PM

You would think that Hezbollah learned in 1996 that humans make lousy shields. Oh wait, you don't think that Hezbollah intended for this to happen, do you?

Pardalis

30th July 2006, 10:23 PM

In response to Webfusion and Gumboot, I think it's very unlikely that innocent civilian families would willingly reside somewhere where weapons are stored. I think something like that doesn't get unnoticed. But I could be wrong, I acknowledge I don't know anything about this issue.

As you both said, let's wait for the evidence. :)

gumboot

30th July 2006, 10:44 PM

In response to Webfusion and Gumboot, I think it's very unlikely that innocent civilian families would willingly reside somewhere where weapons are stored.

I agree completely. :) And yes, let's wait for the video. :)

-Andrew

Leif Roar

30th July 2006, 10:49 PM

Leif Roar is absolutely on-target.

The thread title is not an accurate quote of what the IDF is saying.

It is only what I'm saying --- I am of the opinion that Hezbollah had their munitions in the building and they blew up much later, after the strike caused a fire that eventually reached the munitions.

Why do you hold that belief? There's not been presented a shred of evidence to indicate that this building housed munitions, so the only reason I can see for you holding his belief is that it's convenient for your larger position on the situation in Lebanon. In the absence of supporting evidence, why should anyone else care about your personal belief of what the facts are?

(And seriously -- "A fire that eventually reached the munitions"? That schenario isn't even consistent with the known facts. Do you reall think none of the civilians would have had the wherewithal to flee from a burning building?)

According to the IDF, the sites targeted were houses occupied by Hezbollah cells that launched Katyusha rockets into Israel in recent days.

Do you have a cite for that claim? I haven't seen it made anywhere.

gtc

30th July 2006, 10:50 PM

Well do the people of Southern Lebanon have much choice? I mean they are going to want to hide in the safest building in the area. But that is also where Hezbollah are going to want to hide their weapons. I think we should wait too.

Azure

30th July 2006, 10:51 PM

So what video are we talking about?

The Hezbollah video, or the Israeli video?

Or the one doctored by the CT's? :)

Eos of the Eons

30th July 2006, 11:32 PM

webfusion

31st July 2006, 01:01 AM

webfusion

31st July 2006, 01:21 AM

Why do you hold that belief? There's not been presented a shred of evidence to indicate that this building housed munitions

Israeli Air Force Staff chief Brig-Gen Amir Eshel said Sunday he could not account for the time gap between the air strike over Qana village at 0100 Saturday night and the building’s collapse six or seven hours later.

Something blew up. Maybe at some point, we'll know what it was.
My money is on Hezbollah rockets that were stored in the basement.

Anyway, Brig. Eshel went on to say in his press conference:
Qana village was targeted as a busy Hizballa command and logistical center, from which 150 rockets had been fired into Israel on a daily basis.

According to the IDF, the sites targeted were houses occupied by Hezbollah cells that launched Katyusha rockets into Israel in recent days.
Lief Roar asks about this claim:
Do you have a cite for that claim? I haven't seen it made anywhere.

Sure, no problem, ace.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744695.html
Ze'ev Schiff and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies
PM Olmert said that Qana was used as a Hezbollah base for launching hundreds of rockets at Israel.
(four to six 'graphs up from the bottom)

gumboot

31st July 2006, 01:24 AM

So what video are we talking about?

The Hezbollah video, or the Israeli video?

Or the one doctored by the CT's? :)

The rise of poor quality amateur video footage has meant CTers nolonger need to doctor footage...

They just misinterpret it...;)

I believe we would be talking about some sort of "gun camera" from the IAF aircraft that hit the village. Assuming there is such footage (I'd say chances are pretty high there is) it would give a good idea of the extent of the damage from the air strike and if any secondary explosions occured.

This could then be matched to the site of the air strike to assess what had happened.

However I think regardless of what "Evidence" is produced the Pro-Israelis will not consider it a warcrime and the Anti-Isralis will not consider it anything but a warcrime.

So it's all a bit pointless really...

-Andrew

Leif Roar

31st July 2006, 01:36 AM

Israeli Air Force Staff chief Brig-Gen Amir Eshel said Sunday he could not account for the time gap between the air strike over Qana village at 0100 Saturday night and the building’s collapse six or seven hours later.

Something blew up. Maybe at some point, we'll know what it was.
My money is on Hezbollah rockets that were stored in the basement.

You're jumping from "might not have been that" to "since it wasn't that, then it probably was this." That jump is not warranted.

Sure, no problem, ace.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744695.html
Ze'ev Schiff and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies
PM Olmert said that Qana was used as a Hezbollah base for launching hundreds of rockets at Israel.
(four to six 'graphs up from the bottom)

Which is another statement than the one you made ("houses occupied by Hezbollah cells.") There's a pretty significant difference between "the village was used by the Hezbollah" to "these particular houses were occupied by Hezbollah."

FireGarden

31st July 2006, 01:47 AM

It reminds me of the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theories of 9/11.

It's True.
Damaged buildings don't collapse without the use of explosives!

An independent forensics investigation of the fragments of shrapnel (removed from gaza victims in Israeli hospitals) determined they were conclusively not 155mm.

Which independent forensics investigation was that?

It is only what I'm saying --- I am of the opinion that Hezbollah had their munitions in the building and they blew up much later, after the strike caused a fire that eventually reached the munitions.

And you have an expert on hand who will testify that the building blew up from within?

According to the IDF, the sites targeted were houses occupied by Hezbollah cells that launched Katyusha rockets into Israel in recent days.

So not on the actual Sunday when they hit Qana? Hezbollah have been in the area, so it's a target.

Israel halts fire for Qana probe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5229932.stm)

Israeli military officials showed aerial film, taken on Friday, which they said showed Katyusha missiles being fired from near Qana, and a launcher being hidden in a house there.

They were there Friday.
And, in case they hadn't left, Israel hit the target on Sunday.

And video of a launcher being hidden in a house. Not rockets. A launcher.

webfusion

31st July 2006, 01:52 AM

You're jumping from "might not have been that" to "since it wasn't that, then it probably was this." That jump is not warranted.

Let's wait for the video, OK, firegarden & Lief roar?
It's not such a big deal, in this overall war. More people are gonna get blown to smitereens. Hezbollah is guaranteeing it, in several ways. This was just one.

BTW, the exact quote "According to the IDF, the sites targeted were houses occupied by Hezbollah cells that launched Katyusha rockets into Israel in recent days."
is right there in the article cited, six paragraphs from the bottom. I also offered an additional one by Olmert, four 'graphs from the bottom.

[quote]Hezbollah have been in the area, so it's a target.

Correct.

FireGarden

31st July 2006, 02:05 AM

Let's wait for the video, OK, firegarden & Lief roar?
It's not such a big deal, in this overall war.

You heartless whore.
people are dying on both sides. A move has been taken towards peace, and (rather than hope for more) you want to wait because "it's not a big deal" and "More people are gonna get blown to smitereens."

NO. Let's NOT wait.
Let's make sure a complete end to the violence happens as soon as possible.

Despite IAF curbs, there is no cease-fire (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744695.html)

Regarding the instructions to the IAF, the source said, however, "there will be no attacks on buildings that had not been identified" as part of efforts to strike Israel, and held, for example, ammunition, Hezbollah fighters or their commanders

Are we to assume that previous orders did allow attacks on buildings that were not "identified as..."?

Do not call names.

gumboot

31st July 2006, 04:07 AM

You heartless whore.
people are dying on both sides. A move has been taken towards peace, and (rather than hope for more) you want to wait because "it's not a big deal" and "More people are gonna get blown to smitereens."

NO. Let's NOT wait.
Let's make sure a complete end to the violence happens as soon as possible.

I think you'll find what webfusion means is we should wait before labelling this event as a war crime and deciding for ourselves what happened. None of us are currently in a position to make such judgements.

Are we to assume that previous orders did allow attacks on buildings that were not "identified as..."?

I believe the previous order was a halt on all operations. The article makes this quite clear. Now that halt is over, and the IAF has been told to resume as previously.

Pretty straight forward.

-Andrew

DaChew

31st July 2006, 05:34 AM

You heartless whore.

FireGarden won this thread.

gtc

31st July 2006, 05:41 AM

FireGarden won this thread.

Will I top him if I call you a heartless son of a whore?

AmateurScientist

31st July 2006, 05:43 AM

You heartless whore.
people are dying on both sides. A move has been taken towards peace, and (rather than hope for more) you want to wait because "it's not a big deal" and "More people are gonna get blown to smitereens."

NO. Let's NOT wait.
Let's make sure a complete end to the violence happens as soon as possible.

Ah, spoken like a true "peace at all costs" peacenik. I suppose the British colonists in the New World should have just ceased the violence against the British troops in North America because people were dying on both sides, including, for Heaven's sake civilians.

It took years to win the American Revolutionary War of indepence -- years of violence, death, and destruction. That's the cost of doing the business of war.

War is sometimes necessary. Those who reject this notion have their heads in the sand.

AS

Pardalis

31st July 2006, 06:36 AM

It's True.
Damaged buildings don't collapse without the use of explosives!

That's not what I meant... unless you are joking. :confused:

gumboot

31st July 2006, 06:49 AM

That's not what I meant... unless you are joking. :confused:

I think he's being sarcastic...;)

-Andrew

DaChew

31st July 2006, 07:25 AM

Will I top him if I call you a heartless son of a whore?

Nope. Sorry, once a thread winner has been declared or declares victory himself (as is the usual method), that's the end of it regardless of my mother's personal life.

Earthborn

31st July 2006, 08:50 AM

I suppose the British colonists in the New World should have just ceased the violence against the British troops in North AmericaName one good reason why they shouldn't have. Name another good reason why the British troops shouldn't have just ceased the violence against the colonists.

Surely you can do both if you believe that "war is sometimes necessary" ...

FireGarden

31st July 2006, 09:04 AM

Pardalis
Everything that begins (or ends) with "It's True" is a joke. :) You have to have been on the Religion part of the forum to understand!

Ah, spoken like a true "peace at all costs" peacenik.

Really? And your going back how far with your war analogies now?

War is sometimes necessary. Those who reject this notion have their heads in the sand.

Have you seen how popular Hezbollah has become? How unpopular America and the Lebanese politicians associated with it have become? Instead of marginalising allies in Lebanon and strengthing enemies, Israel and the US could have done the reverse.

Anybody who thinks this war was Israel's best course of action has sand in their head.

Leif Roar

31st July 2006, 09:16 AM

Ah, spoken like a true "peace at all costs" peacenik. I suppose the British colonists in the New World should have just ceased the violence against the British troops in North America because people were dying on both sides, including, for Heaven's sake civilians.

It took years to win the American Revolutionary War of indepence -- years of violence, death, and destruction. That's the cost of doing the business of war.

War is sometimes necessary. Those who reject this notion have their heads in the sand.

AS

To paraphrase your post:

I suppose the Japanese in Indo-China should have just ceased the violence against the British troops in Burma because people were dying on both sides, including, for Heaven's sake civilians.

It took years to win the war of Vietnamese independence -- years of violence, death, and destruction. That's the cost of doing the business of war.

War is sometimes necessary. Those who reject this notion have their heads in the sand.

My point is that although war is sometimes necessary, that alone is not a sufficent excuse to wage one. There have been plenty of unjust wars that it would be better had not been fought. Considering the suffering even a limited war entails, I think it's incumbent to put the burden of proof on the people who hold that a particular war is necessary and just.

FireGarden

31st July 2006, 09:35 AM

I believe the previous order was a halt on all operations. The article makes this quite clear. Now that halt is over, and the IAF has been told to resume as previously.

Perhaps you need more context. They are describing the terms of the suspension of airstrikes. It isn't a complete suspension. So which targets will they still hit?

Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744695.html)

The government source said that the IAF had been told to continue acting against "targets that present a threat to Israel and its troops, including rocket launchers, vehicles transporting ammunition, Hezbollah fighters, weapons stores and Hezbollah assets."

The term "Hezbollah assets" refers to people identified with the organization, including those who do not pose an immediate threat. "If they are identified with Hassan Nasrallah, we will hit them," the source said.

Which targets will they not hit?

Regarding the instructions to the IAF, the source said, however, "there will be no attacks on buildings that had not been identified" as part of efforts to strike Israel, and held, for example, ammunition, Hezbollah fighters or their commanders."

So the suspension means they are not hitting buildings unless they are identified as belonging to the first group.

Maybe it's a badly written article (the quote marks don't add up -- but I copied and pasted.)

webfusion

31st July 2006, 12:36 PM

You heartless whore.
people are dying on both sides. A move has been taken towards peace, and (rather than hope for more) you want to wait because "it's not a big deal" and "More people are gonna get blown to smitereens."

NO. Let's NOT wait.
Let's make sure a complete end to the violence happens as soon as possible.

Dream on, dude. No moves towards 'peace' have been made. At all.
Actually, the IAF is reportedly now bombing on the Syrian border! (a few hundred meters from the crossings)

Prime Minsiter Ehud Olmert warned today that Israel still faced "no small number of days of fighting ahead."

"We should be ready for pain, tears and blood," he said. "Missiles and rockets will still land in Israel in the coming days."

So, yeah, from my vantage point, more people are gonna get blown to smithereens. You must have a good pair of rose-tinted glasses on.

FireGarden

31st July 2006, 02:26 PM

Dream on, dude. No moves towards 'peace' have been made. At all.

I don't think Ms Rice would stick her neck out and say "This week" unless she was sure. So I will keep hoping.

Cuddles

31st July 2006, 04:26 PM

What I don't understand is why all hezbollah military stuff is mixed into civilian areas. The Iranian leader has been saying "death to Israel" all year long, so a war was imminent, but why mix all military stuff in with civilians?

Why aren't the Lebanese pissed at hezbollah for using the civilians as shields?

Israel seemed to be counting on the Lebanese popular support with their demands that the Lebanese government act to remove Hezbollah from the south. Unfortunately they decided to attack major civilian centres and infrastructure, ensuring that most Lebanese instead support Hezbollah who are seen as heroic fighters defending their land rather than terrorist agressors.

fuelair

31st July 2006, 05:31 PM

What I don't understand is why all hezbollah military stuff is mixed into civilian areas. The Iranian leader has been saying "death to Israel" all year long, so a war was imminent, but why mix all military stuff in with civilians?

Why aren't the Lebanese pissed at hezbollah for using the civilians as shields?

Because it is typical of the cowards - they know if they do not hide among civilians (i.e. if they have real military bases, a real uniform,do not fire their weapons from the middle of civilian areas ) any real military will airstrike their slimy bodies and send them straight to Allah. Many so called "freedom fighters" do that which is one reason why I have never had any use for them.

I have a wild suspicion that many Lebanese are pissed - and think about why they might not say that or try to move Hezbllsht out.

Eos of the Eons

31st July 2006, 05:51 PM

Yeah. I'll bet the hezbollah political party tells people that their families members are toast if they try to leave the area. I can't prove it though :(

gumboot

31st July 2006, 10:53 PM

Perhaps you need more context. They are describing the terms of the suspension of airstrikes. It isn't a complete suspension. So which targets will they still hit?

I don't agree. I believe they suspended operations for "48 hours" and the next day changed their mind (presumably after assessing the attack on Qana and determining it was a legitimate target).

It reads to me like the IAF was told to resume, and the quotes are a PR effort to emphasise that the IAF are not just randomly dropping bombs.

Your assumption is, since they'd reitterated that they are only targetting legitimate targets, that this is somehow a "change" and before this "change" they were hitting anything they felt like.

-Andrew

gumboot

31st July 2006, 11:01 PM

Yeah. I'll bet the hezbollah political party tells people that their families members are toast if they try to leave the area. I can't prove it though :(

One thing I find a bit odd, that no one seems to have considered...

The possibility that these "poor innocent victims" actually ARE actively helping Hizbollah.

Scenario One:

Hizbollah turns up at the door and goes "hey, we want to stash some rockets here, praise be to Allah!"

Dad (man of the house) goes "Yeah why not, death to Israel!"

IDF find out about the cache and drop a bomb on it, killing Dad, Mum, and the kids. Hizbollah parade bodies of family as innocent victims.

and

Scenario Two:

Hizbollah turns up at the door, AK-47 in hard. "Allah demands we store our weapons in your house!"

Dad (man of the house) goes "But my family! My children!"

Hizbollah smashes Dad with AK-47 "Infidel! Allah demands it! Allah is great!"

Dad (reluctantly) agrees and hopes IDF do not find out.

IDF find out about the cache and drop a bomb on it, killing Dad, Mum, and the kids. Hizbollah parade bodies of family as innocent victims.

I don't think I've seen a single person actually offer up either of these above scenarios. Why not? Are we all so naive we actually think this isn't happening at all?

-Andrew

webfusion

1st August 2006, 12:03 AM

One thing I find a bit odd, that no one seems to have considered...

The possibility that these "poor innocent victims" actually ARE actively helping Hizbollah.

I don't think I've seen a single person actually offer up either of these above scenarios. Why not? Are we all so naive we actually think this isn't happening at all?

-Andrew

Without a videotape to prove the actual events you describe, they just do not exist.

Actually, even with a video, won't help you --- it was probably "faked by the mossad."

gumboot

1st August 2006, 12:57 AM

Without a videotape to prove the actual events you describe, they just do not exist.

But no evidence is required to prove Israeli war crimes???

Let me be clear, I aren't claiming the scenarios I presented are the actual facts in this PARTICULAR incident, I mean more generally... that things like this ARE happening in Southern Lebanon.

-Andrew

FireGarden

1st August 2006, 01:29 AM

I don't agree. I believe they suspended operations for "48 hours" and the next day changed their mind (presumably after assessing the attack on Qana and determining it was a legitimate target).

The suspension is still in place today. They have not changed their minds about the suspension.

What does "suspension" mean? What has Israel agreed not to hit? They are still hitting targets identified as helpful to Hezbollah. They are not hitting targets which are not identified as such.

The suspension seems to be that second part.

zenith-nadir

1st August 2006, 03:31 AM

Just an F.Y.I.

July 30, 2006 12:00am (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html) - the Herald Sun

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.(emphaisis mine)

gumboot

1st August 2006, 03:35 AM

What does "suspension" mean? What has Israel agreed not to hit? They are still hitting targets identified as helpful to Hezbollah. They are not hitting targets which are not identified as such.

A suggestion offered up, which makes sense, is that during this 48 hour period they would suspended tactical air operations, favouring instead only strategic air operations.

This is, of course, only a hypothesis, but it would make sense.

-Andrew

FireGarden

1st August 2006, 09:44 AM

No rockets from Qana that day

Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html)

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

Civilians aren't targeted, of course. They just die as part of Israel's blitzing of the south, destroying anything that might be Hezbollah -- even if it hadn't been identified as such.

As the "justice" minister said, "Anybody left iin the south is a terrorist." Doesn't matter if they are old/ill/disabled without a car or the petrol to run a car.....

Israel is a terrorist

Cleon

1st August 2006, 10:11 AM

webfusion

1st August 2006, 10:41 AM

Cleon, the investigation has not concluded.

BTW, Ha'aretz itself reported that the IDF was claiming that the town of Qana was being used for rocket-launchings "in recent days" ---

The original article I linked (Post #20) has been altered and focuses on other aspects of the overall conflict. Ha'aretz is being disengeneous by now saying that the IDF is 'changing their story' -- Ha'aretz itself is changing the story!

As the "justice" minister said, "Anybody left iin the south is a terrorist."

Haim Ramon said the following: (link to Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml))
"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah.

The country's biggest-selling paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, said the army had raised the threshold of response to Katyusha rockets.

"In other words: a village from which rockets are launched at Israel will simply be destroyed by IAF fire," the paper said.

"This decision should have been made and executed after the first Katyusha. But better late than never."
I do recall an article by Yossi Verter, which contains this marvellous quote by the Defense Minister --
"In every field of dry brush a match is hiding," -- Amir Peretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741115.html

webfusion

1st August 2006, 10:52 AM

Mysteriously, the allegation in the OP remains completely unsubstantiated.

Odd, the loops and assumptions people will go through to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. You might almost call it a religious devotion.

A follow-up to this mysterious incident:
from --- Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30418)
The Lebanese website LIBANOSCOPIE (www.libanoscopie.com/FullDoc.asp?DocCode=994&Cat=2) , associated with Christian elements in the country and which openly supports the anti-Syrian movement called the
"March 14 Forces," reported that Hizbullah has masterminded a plan that
would result in the killing of innocents in the Qana village, in a bid to
foil Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's "Seven Points Plan", which
calls for deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon and the
disarming of Hizbullah.

'Disabled children placed inside building'

"We have it from a credible source that Hizbullah, alarmed by Siniora's
plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations.

Knowing full well that Israel will not hesitate to bombard civilian targets,
Hizbullah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought
disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air
Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of
innocents and curtail the negotiation initiative," the site stated.

The site's editors also claimed that not only did Hizbullah stage the event,
but that it also chose Qana for a specific reason: "They used Qana because
the village had already turned into a symbol for massacring innocent
civilians, and so they set up 'Qana 2'." Notably, the incident has indeed
been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media.

Loops and hoops and whirligigs.

The investigation has not yet concluded, so be patient.

(BTW, the number of dead is being listed today as 28)
Meanwhile, the Lebanese Red Cross workers reported on Monday that 28 bodies, 19 of them children, were removed from the rubble.

Leif Roar

1st August 2006, 11:01 AM

Come on. An unsupported claim made on a web-page? You can't seriously suggest that this in any way substantiates anything?

Molinaro

1st August 2006, 11:08 AM

And what exactly substantiates your point of view?

Cleon

1st August 2006, 11:23 AM

Cleon, the investigation has not concluded.

So the IDF investigation of itself has not yet concluded...And this somehow substantiates your point? I don't think so, Tim.

Mycroft

1st August 2006, 11:36 AM

Mysteriously, the allegation in the OP remains completely unsubstantiated.

Odd, the loops and assumptions people will go through to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. You might almost call it a religious devotion.

Odd, the loops and assumptions people will go through to absolve Islamic fundamentalist of any wrongdoing. You might almost call it a religious devotion.

Pardalis

1st August 2006, 11:36 AM

Odd, the loops and assumptions people will go through to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing. You might almost call it a religious devotion.

Odd, the loops and assumptions people will go through to absolve Islamic fundamentalist of any wrongdoing. You might almost call it a religious devotion.

This is not critical thinking.

edited to add quote

Leif Roar

1st August 2006, 12:02 PM

And what exactly substantiates your point of view?

I don't think I've put forth any opinions or statement of fact in this discussion that would require any substantiation. I've expressed my doubts and concerns, and I've pointed out flaws and weaknesses in other people's arguments. Those kind of comments are not matters of fact and do not need to be substantiated beyond the argumentation itself.

Webfusion's rethoric, particularly in this thread, seems intent on creating the impression that it's likely or even practicially certain that the IDF was not culpable for the civilian deaths in Quana. That is a position that do need to be substantiated.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 12:48 PM

Culpable?

The IAF bombed the village. That is not in doubt!

The only question here is --- was the target a base of Hezbollah operations? And if so, why were civilians there?

It doesn't matter if Hezbollah rockets were fired on that day or not.
What matters is if we are shown clear proof that the village of Qana (and that building in particular) had been a beehive of terrorist activity, and thus, a proper strategic target for the IDF.

If that proof is forthcoming upon the conclusion of the investigation, then the statement is true:
"Israel not to blame."

At no point in this thread has there been any need for me to substantiate the fact that the IAF conducted an air raid on Qana. Nobody denies the IAF did so. The only question was how did the building, which was struck by IAF bombs at midnight or so, suddenly explode and collapse at 7am ?

And if, in fact, that long delay actually happened, since several reports are contradictory on that point.

Since there are questions if that is the correct timeline, I have said in several posts that it's best to wait, for the full investigation to conclude. That's right, I've been saying exactly this since post #3, and I've been clearly just speculating (not saying for sure I know) what was the actual cause of the building exploding several hours after the IAF raid. I am allowed to guess and postulate -- it's not unusual for people to do so, when there are mysterious circumstances.

Cleon

1st August 2006, 12:57 PM

Culpable?

The IAF bombed the village. That is not in doubt!

The only question here is --- was the target a base of Hezbollah operations? And if so, why were civilians there?

And if so, why is there not a shred of evidence testifying to that "fact?"

Since there are questions if that is the correct timeline, I have said in several posts that it's best to wait, for the full investigation to conclude.

Well, whaddya know--the thread title doesn't exactly lend itself to "wait and see." In fact, there's no "ifs," "maybes," "possiblies," or other conditional words in the thread title.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 01:04 PM

And if so, why is there not a shred of evidence testifying to that "fact?"

What fact?
That Hezbollah was launching rockets from inside the village of Qana?

Shred this:

"From what I've been told... Qana and its surroundings are a center for the launching of rockets against Kiryat Shmona and Afula," PM Olmert said, referring to towns in Israel's north.

Well, whaddya know--the thread title doesn't exactly lend itself to "wait and see." In fact, there's no "ifs," "maybes," "possiblies," or other conditional words in the thread title.

Read the OP.

Cleon

1st August 2006, 01:27 PM

What fact?
That Hezbollah was launching rockets from inside the village of Qana?

"The only question here is --- was the target a base of Hezbollah operations? And if so, why were civilians there?"]

And if so, why isn't there a shred of evidence testifying to this "fact?"

Read the OP.

Already done. It's rather evident that you've made up your mind, and you are looking for anything and everything to keep the possibility open that this refuge was somehow "a base of Hezbollah operations."

But don't let the lack of evidence keep you down! Keep at it!

webfusion

1st August 2006, 01:49 PM

There is no 'lack of evidence' at all ---- what you are rejecting as 'evidence' are the statements of the IDF and the Israelis.

You are free to discount these sources as unreliable, in your opinion, but you cannot say that by my presenting those sources I am failing to offer '"a shred of testimony or evidence."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The 48-hour lull is finished...
Brigadier-General Shuki Shahur, a senior Israeli commander, said Israel would resume full air strikes.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/ABB788A5-323A-4B0D-8A3C-20CF06067560/134232/E7FE6F3EA467462AACBC588FEEB74A2F.jpg
Aita al-Shaab during Israeli air
raids on Tuesday.

Cleon

1st August 2006, 02:15 PM

There is no 'lack of evidence' at all ---- what you are rejecting as 'evidence' are the statements of the IDF and the Israelis.

No. You don't get away with it that easily.

One ultra-conservative news site reported that the IAF commander "left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists blew up the building themselves, or that an unknown cause set off explosives which were stored in the structure."

See, if you actually read the article, he didn't actually say this was a possibility, or even a consideration. He merely "left open the possibility"--which means he didn't say "no, that's not possible."

This is not "the IDF and the Israelis," who I'm sure would do no wrong and never say something that wasn't true. This is one guy who wouldn't say "it's not possible," and the rest is 100% pure grade-A spin on the part of "Israel National News" and yourself.

You are free to discount these sources as unreliable, in your opinion, but you cannot say that by my presenting those sources I am failing to offer '"a shred of testimony or evidence."

On the contrary, you have not presented a single shred of evidence or testemony to the idea that Hizballah was storing weapons in the building, that the refugees where somehow in cahoots with Hizballah, or your other van Danikenesque attempts to avoid placing responsibility for this on the IDF.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 02:48 PM

One ultra-conservative news site reported that the IAF commander "left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists blew up the building themselves, or that an unknown cause set off explosives which were stored in the structure."

See, if you actually read the article, he didn't actually say this was a possibility, or even a consideration. He merely "left open the possibility"--which means he didn't say "no, that's not possible." This is not "the IDF and the Israelis," who I'm sure would do no wrong and never say something that wasn't true. This is one guy who wouldn't say "it's not possible," and the rest is 100% pure grade-A spin on the part of "Israel National News" and yourself.

INN is a properly-constituted news-gathering organization, whose dispatches are composed from a variety of high-ranking IDF and Israeli governement sources. You are deriding this as being useful, but that is a pretty thin argument on your part.

It wasn't "one guy" Cleon, it was the head of the Israeli Air Force!
Air Force Commander Amir Eshel had no reasonable explanation for the building exploding several hours after his pilots concluded their mission.
So, he proposed alternatives which seemed plausible to him, under the known set of circumstances. That's not 'spin'

No. You don't get away with it that easily.

The results of the IAF investigation of the Qana situation have not yet been made public, and when they are, you can comment all you want to.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||

Breaking News:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745131.html
Hezbollah positions under fierce assault by IDF across Lebanon.
Commandos are making helicopter-borne raids at Baalbek (close to Syria).
An "extreme, unprecedented" number of aircraft are flying bombing missions.

Hezbollah bases of operations in every sector are being destroyed.

Uh-oh, I don't seem to have evidence these are really Hezbollah bases of operations -- so it's all spin and conjecture on my part.

Oh Well...

Tally ho.

Leif Roar

1st August 2006, 02:55 PM

Culpable?

"Meriting condemnation or blame." That is the central question here, isn't it? Whether the IDF is culpable for the civilian deaths or not, and if so to which degree.

It doesn't matter if Hezbollah rockets were fired on that day or not.

Of course it matters. The military gains from attacking an abandoned enemy position is practically nil, and the military gains from attacking a position that might have enemy soliders present is less than the military gains from attacking a position with a confirmed enemy presence.

What matters is if we are shown clear proof that the village of Qana (and that building in particular) had been a beehive of terrorist activity, and thus, a proper strategic target for the IDF.

While I don't actually doubt that Hezbollah operated out of Qana, we have not been shown "clear proof" that they did so. We have been presented claims that they did so. There is a difference. As for "that building in particular" I'm not aware even of any claims that it was used by Hezbollah.

If that proof is forthcoming upon the conclusion of the investigation, then the statement is true:
"Israel not to blame."

I don't agree that that would be sufficent.

Since there are questions if that is the correct timeline, I have said in several posts that it's best to wait, for the full investigation to conclude.

And yet your continuing rethoric has been to raise suggestions, without any substantiation at all, about how the Hezbollah rather than the IDF might be to blame. In my book, that doesn't really constitute "waiting for the full investigation to conclude."

That's right, I've been saying exactly this since post #3, and I've been clearly just speculating (not saying for sure I know) what was the actual cause of the building exploding several hours after the IAF raid. I am allowed to guess and postulate -- it's not unusual for people to do so, when there are mysterious circumstances.

Of course you're allowed to do so, but even a guess need to be substantiated. Pulling hypothesis out of thin air is not debating; it hardly even qualifies as rethoric.

Leif Roar

1st August 2006, 03:06 PM

It wasn't "one guy" Cleon, it was the head of the Israeli Air Force!
Air Force Commander Amir Eshel had no reasonable explanation for the building exploding several hours after his pilots concluded their mission.
So, he proposed alternatives which seemed plausible to him, under the known set of circumstances. That's not 'spin'

Your paragraph here, however, might easily be considered spin, though. He did not say that they had "no reasonable explanation", only that "it was not clear what happened." He also didn't "propose alternatives which seemed plausible", he only "left open the possibility".

In other words, you've transformed "we're not sure" into "we can't explain it" and "not impossible" into "plausible." I think we can say that's pretty well spun as spin goes.

Cleon

1st August 2006, 03:23 PM

INN is a properly-constituted news-gathering organization, whose dispatches are composed from a variety of high-ranking IDF and Israeli governement sources. You are deriding this as being useful, but that is a pretty thin argument on your part.

INN is an ultra-conservative news source which reflects the politics of the ultra-orthodox settler movement.

That is simply reality, and not a statement as to the truth or untruth of the article. Considering the lack of substantiation of the article title, however, I think that throws the accuracy of the "news" aspect into some doubt.

It wasn't "one guy" Cleon, it was the head of the Israeli Air Force!

The head of the IAF isn't one person?

Air Force Commander Amir Eshel had no reasonable explanation for the building exploding several hours after his pilots concluded their mission.
So, he proposed alternatives which seemed plausible to him, under the known set of circumstances. That's not 'spin'

Really? Odd that the article did not mention him actually proposing anything.

In fact, all they said was that he "didn't rule it out"--again, all this means is that he didn't say it's "not possible." In fact, it doesn't mention him saying anything about the possibility at all! The ONLY thing it actually quotes him as saying is "it is not clear what happened."

So, yes, saying that he "didn't rule out the possibility" is NOTHING but spin. He also "didn't rule out the possibility" that the building was destroyed by an LC-like conspiracy of Lebanese government officials.

The results of the IAF investigation of the Qana situation have not yet been made public, and when they are, you can comment all you want to.

And this hasn't stopped you because...?

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 04:42 PM

Hezbollah firing missiles from Qana (Lebanon) neighborhoods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHpkl9AJYb0&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b)

webfusion

1st August 2006, 05:07 PM

Apollyon, nice.

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 05:16 PM

The IAF may have targeted the wrong building, but they certainly had a valid reason for targeting Qana. It leaves little doubt concerning the Hezbollah tactics of launching from civilian areas as well.

It's difficult to fault Israel for doing what they are doing when there is plenty of cause for suspicion to believe Hezbollah is orchestrating these incidents to try and win a war in the media that they cannot possibly win on the ground.

The Fool

1st August 2006, 06:53 PM

The IAF may have targeted the wrong building, but they certainly had a valid reason for targeting Qana. It leaves little doubt concerning the Hezbollah tactics of launching from civilian areas as well.

yes, it leaves little doubt...but who doubted it in the first place?

It's difficult to fault Israel for doing what they are doing when there is plenty of cause for suspicion to believe Hezbollah is orchestrating these incidents to try and win a war in the media that they cannot possibly win on the ground.
Would you find it difficult to fault Israel if they leveled every house or structure in the whole of Qanaand straffed all viehicles on all exit roads around the clock on suspicion?

So what is the level of Israeli action that it is legitimate to critisize? Who says what level of action is acceptable and what is over the top? It seems that many are happy to leave that decision to Israel...whatever they do is ok.

I think it is quite interesting that Israel has come out and said they will suspend strikes for a while except where the target is confirmed.....you see the thing is I think that is what it should always have been...what about you?

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 07:05 PM

yes, it leaves little doubt...but who doubted it in the first place?
Who did I name?

I was making an affirming statement.

Would you find it difficult to fault Israel if they leveled every house or structure in the whole of Qanaand straffed all viehicles on all exit roads around the clock on suspicion?

So what is the level of Israeli action that it is legitimate to critisize? Who says what level of action is acceptable and what is over the top? It seems that many are happy to leave that decision to Israel...whatever they do is ok.

I think it is quite interesting that Israel has come out and said they will suspend strikes for a while except where the target is confirmed.....you see the thing is I think that is what it should always have been...what about you?
Sorry, but I see no use in replying to your straw man argument.

a_unique_person

1st August 2006, 07:13 PM

What was the straw man part of it?

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 07:20 PM

What was the straw man part of it?

"Would you find it difficult to fault Israel if they leveled every house or structure in the whole of Qanaand straffed all viehicles on all exit roads around the clock on suspicion?"

Straw man.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 07:25 PM

Cleon

1st August 2006, 07:36 PM

T-F proposes:"It seems that many are happy to leave that decision to Israel...whatever they do is ok."

Right now, yes.
The IDF actions are consistent with putting an end to Hezbollah's capabilities to wage any campaign of terror against Israel anymore.

Israel is not to blame.
...No matter what they do.

It seems that the question posed in another thread has been answered. Can you apply skeptical thinking to Middle East politics? Apparently, for some people the answer is a resounding "no."

Cleon

1st August 2006, 07:39 PM

Apollyon, nice.

"Nice?"

webfusion

1st August 2006, 08:12 PM

Nice proof.

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 08:13 PM

"Nice?"
I took it as "nice" find. ymmv.

The Fool

1st August 2006, 08:16 PM

"Would you find it difficult to fault Israel if they leveled every house or structure in the whole of Qanaand straffed all viehicles on all exit roads around the clock on suspicion?"

Straw man.No, its a question...Just curious as to if there is any level of Israeli action you would find over the top...is there? Can you give me an example of something you would not approve of?

Apollyon

1st August 2006, 08:28 PM

No, its a question...Just curious as to if there is any level of Israeli action you would find over the top...is there? Can you give me an example of something you would not approve of?
I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios where I could find Israel to be over-the-top in reaction, hypothetically. However, this does not seem to be one of those scenarios.

My opinion involves a myriad of reasons. One particular reason I can give is because I feel Hezbollah is manipulating the media. As an example there is this:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

By itself it's very questionable. But when the following is taken into consideration, it's hard not to come to a particular determination:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html

Who TF this dude? Hezboallah's death PR guy?

I don't like being played for a sucker. If others want to be useful idiots, fine, but it ain't me.

The Fool

1st August 2006, 08:33 PM

T-F proposes:"It seems that many are happy to leave that decision to Israel...whatever they do is ok."

Right now, yes.
The IDF actions are consistent with putting an end to Hezbollah's capabilities to wage any campaign of terror against Israel anymore.

Israel is not to blame.

Eliminating the entire population of the area would also be consistant with putting an end to Hezbollah but I don't think that would be acceptable. (or maybe it would)...I would love to know if there is a limit to what is acceptable, besides the limit of whatever Israel wants the limit to be.

gumboot

1st August 2006, 08:46 PM

I would love to know if there is a limit to what is acceptable, besides the limit of whatever Israel wants the limit to be.

What is acceptable is defined by international law, specifically the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The video posted (assuming it is of Kana) is sufficient evidence to confirm that the bombing of Kana was not a warcrime, thus is an acceptable act, under international law.

-Andrew

ETA. Sorry, is it "Kana" or "Qana"? I've seen both spellings.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 08:54 PM

T-F indicates: "Eliminating the entire population of the area would also be consistant with putting an end to Hezbollah"

Israel's efforts are to isolate Hezbollah and push them out of South Lebanon, and remove their civilian cover. To a great extent, this tactic has been effective. The limit is whatever the IDF chooses it to be, it's their call.

While I hesitate to mix apples with oranges, it is instructive to look at this report from gaza today:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745141.html
Israel Air Force aircraft on Wednesday bombed a house in central Gaza used by Hamas militants to store weapons, the Israel Defense Forces said.

WildCat

1st August 2006, 09:01 PM

Hezbollah firing missiles from Qana (Lebanon) neighborhoods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHpkl9AJYb0&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b)
No! Those trucks were delivering baby milk and ice cream to children!

WildCat

1st August 2006, 09:03 PM

ETA. Sorry, is it "Kana" or "Qana"? I've seen both spellings.
Since the translation is from arabic, which doesn't use Roman letters, either is acceptable.

Mycroft

1st August 2006, 09:10 PM

No, its a question...Just curious as to if there is any level of Israeli action you would find over the top...is there? Can you give me an example of something you would not approve of?

How about turning that around? Is Israel capable of doing anything at all in its self-defence that won't draw condemnation from you and your buddies?

WildCat

1st August 2006, 09:21 PM

How about turning that around? Is Israel capable of doing anything at all in its self-defence that won't draw condemnation from you and your buddies?
Mycroft, you should know by now that the critics only say what Israel shouldn't do, never what they should do. For some reason there isn't the same urgency to act from their comfy computer chair 6,000 miles away. :rolleyes:

webfusion

1st August 2006, 09:35 PM

gumboot

1st August 2006, 09:35 PM

No! Those trucks were delivering baby milk and ice cream to children!

Yes and the "rockets" were just fireworks. The Lebanese children decided to fire some sky rockets across to the skies above Israel so the poor Israeli chidren could have some joy in their life...

-Andrew

The Fool

1st August 2006, 10:03 PM

How about turning that around? Is Israel capable of doing anything at all in its self-defence that won't draw condemnation from you and your buddies?
Well, I can't speak for "my buddies" but I can repeat what I have said a number of times before. Fire at your enemy when you see them....I understand all too well that tragic mistakes can happen, I have personally participated in them. Firing on civilian structures because your enemy just may be there or may have been there yesterday is criminal neglegence and callous disregard.....do you think?

so over to you son.....what could Israel possibly do that you would not applaud?

The Fool

1st August 2006, 10:09 PM

That massive banner displayed in Beirut (only a few hours after the Qana report first was circulated) is a really, really big elephant in the room.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060730/photos_wl_me_afp/9034cf170a188a04a5e80bd48812ca98
This was a professionally-produced banner that would take a day or more to create the graphics, and print on a superlarge-format machine in the USA.

Yet, here it is, being hung just hours later. Very odd, indeed.
Lol...we've been taken over by a wave of conspiracy theorists....Mycroft has links in his sig now that link to a site with claims that the bodies photographed at Qana don't look fresh enough....makes you think eh? Hmmmmmm maybe is all staged and it neeeeeeeever happened....it Neeeeeever happened, watch the swinging watch......it Neeeeever happened...

If would be funny if it wasn't so offensive.

The Fool

1st August 2006, 10:16 PM

Mycroft, you should know by now that the critics only say what Israel shouldn't do, never what they should do. For some reason there isn't the same urgency to act from their comfy computer chair 6,000 miles away. :rolleyes:

whereas you are typing from the thick of the action??

Just one more time for those that constantly repeat the tired old claim that people don't say what Israel should do...they should drop bombs on terrorists and not drop bombs on stories that terrorists may have been there yesterday....

webfusion

1st August 2006, 10:17 PM

Fire at your enemy when you see them..

Done.

IDF forces reportedly captured five junior Hezbollah militants and killed several others before completing the operation and safely returning to Israel. One of the captives was identified as Hussein Nasrallah.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745276.html
Wednesday morning IDF infantry continued to engage in fierce gunfights in south Lebanon. Seven Hezbollah gunmen were killed in the fighting, the IDF said.

Firing on civilian structures because your enemy just may be there or may have been there yesterday is criminal neglegence and calous disregard.....do you think?

I have no problem with that. It seems perfectly legitimate to me.
Not criminal at all.

Witnesses in Baalbek said they saw dozens of IAF helicopters hovering over the city. They said the hospital in Baalbek, filled with patients and wounded people, was bombed by IAF helicopters late Tuesday. Plumes of burning smoke billowed from the hospital after it was directly hit, they said.

Sounds really "criminal" ----- until you read the entire report! ------

"A group of Israeli commandos was brought to the hospital by a helicopter. They entered the hospital and are trapped inside as our fighters opened fire on them and fierce fighting is still raging," Hezbollah spokesman Hussein Rahal told AP.

The Fool

1st August 2006, 10:25 PM

The limit is whatever the IDF chooses it to be, it's their call.

What do you call unimited support without question? What sort of events does that enable?

webfusion

1st August 2006, 10:27 PM

If would be funny if it wasn't so offensive.

The photos show what they show.

No dust. Clean 'searchers'. Clean victims. Even some victims that look like they were taken out of a morgue in Tyre (and transported into Qana by refrigerated truck)!

A super-print banner ready in hours.
(I couldn't even achieve this in Baltimore, under optimum conditions, in less than 2 days, at a sign shop).

Hezbollah may have produced the entire mass-tragedy as "Qana 2" for the media. It's entirely within the realm of probability.

webfusion

1st August 2006, 10:31 PM

What do you call unlimited support without question? What sort of events does that enable?

Along with most Israelis, I'm fine with the operations of the IDF.
The current level of combat is achieving successes, and in the next few days another three divisions will move in (30,000 troops) ----
It presents no problems to me that they are doing what they are doing.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060718-095125-1567r.htm

Mycroft

1st August 2006, 11:18 PM

Lol...we've been taken over by a wave of conspiracy theorists....Mycroft has links in his sig now that link to a site with claims that the bodies photographed at Qana don't look fresh enough....makes you think eh?

That specific claim is not made by Michelle Malkin. You just can't stop yourself from making up lies, can you?

The Fool

1st August 2006, 11:31 PM

That specific claim is not made by Michelle Malkin. You just can't stop yourself from making up lies, can you?
Did I mention malkin?
follow your own link son......here is the text on the page you are publishing in your sig on jref.

HotairHome The Vault Gear About
What happened in Qana?posted at 10:02 am on August 1, 2006
Send to a Friend
Hezbollywood: Evidence mounts
Lights, camera, Hezbollywood!
Who is Green Helmet?
Were the Qana bodies staged? * Look
Qana propaganda * Blame
The weaponization of children * Innocents as tools

Download Vent for your iPod

Do you think the Qana bodies were staged or do you just want to link to that sort of CT stuff in you sig but avoid having to stand by it if challenged?
Do you also follow web in his "makes you think" dancing about the claim that big banner about Qana having to be printed before Qana happened? Lol.....conspiracy theorists, they are everywhere....

watch the swinging watch....it neeeeeever happened, it neeeeeever happened.

edit to add...I note that Web has turned into a full blown "the bodies were staged" Conspiracy theorist.....you will have to follow suit now won't you?

The Fool

1st August 2006, 11:45 PM

Along with most Israelis, I'm fine with the operations of the IDF.
The current level of combat is achieving successes, and in the next few days another three divisions will move in (30,000 troops) ----
It presents no problems to me that they are doing what they are doing.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060718-095125-1567r.htm
50,000 dead lebanese civilians......why not? You would (apparently) support it. Do you see any danger in people with a lot of firepower and a large population of people feeding them who are happy for them to do whatever they want? Is this starting to sound familiar web?

gtc

1st August 2006, 11:45 PM

Mycroft

1st August 2006, 11:55 PM

Did I mention malkin?
follow your own link son......here is the text on the page you are publishing in your sig on jref.

HotairHome The Vault Gear About
What happened in Qana?posted at 10:02 am on August 1, 2006
Send to a Friend
Hezbollywood: Evidence mounts
Lights, camera, Hezbollywood!
Who is Green Helmet?
Were the Qana bodies staged? * Look
Qana propaganda * Blame
The weaponization of children * Innocents as tools

Download Vent for your iPod

Do you think the Qana bodies were staged or do you just want to link to that sort of CT stuff in you sig but avoid having to stand by it if challenged?
Do you also follow web in his "makes you think" dancing about the claim that big banner about Qana having to be printed before Qana happened? Lol.....conspiracy theorists, they are everywhere....

watch the swinging watch....it neeeeeever happened, it neeeeeever happened.

edit to add...I note that Web has turned into a full blown "the bodies were staged" Conspiracy theorist.....you will have to follow suit now won't you?

Nothing you quoted talks about how fresh the bodies are.

The word "fresh" does not appear on the web page I linked to.

So...Michelle Malkin didn't say it. Nobody on that page said it. I certainly didn't say it.

Will you admit you lied when you that site claims the bodies wern't "fresh enough"?

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 12:04 AM

TF,

You have actual warzone experience, that I hope never to have.

What do you make of the photos of the bodies shown at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

These photos are graphic, so I would understand if you did not want to view them, but do they look posed or staged to you?

Not necessarily faked, but posed for the benefit of photographers.
your link is not working but I'm familiar with the pictures.....They look like people showing off dead babies and children. Do you think this is an unusual behavior? My own experiences are from a long long time ago but when you move into a villiage someone had shelled "just in case" then people would sometimes bring out the body of a baby or a child or an old woman and show it to you... sometimes sobbing, sometimes angry, sometimes very calm..they just want someone to know what happened there. If there was a journalist that journalist would often be taken to view more bodies or graves....

sorry but this just makes me want to puke, imagine the response of these grubs if someone posted AP pictures of Israeli civilian dead and claimed there was a conspiracy behind it..

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 12:12 AM

That massive banner displayed in Beirut (only a few hours after the Qana report first was circulated) is a really, really big elephant in the room.

"A few hours"? I think you've forgotten to take time-zones into consideration. The photo was released by AFP more than 13 hours after the first reports from Quana. Tight, but not that difficult for a well-oiled PR machine -- and the Hezbollah's PR machine is certainly well oiled.

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 12:12 AM

50,000 dead lebanese civilians......why not? You would (apparently) support it.

I mentioned 48,217. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1797051&postcount=43) (At which point, I might be influenced to say "stop")

Why are you inflating that? It seems quite unfair of you to misquote me.

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 12:23 AM

I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios where I could find Israel to be over-the-top in reaction, hypothetically. However, this does not seem to be one of those scenarios.

My opinion involves a myriad of reasons. One particular reason I can give is because I feel Hezbollah is manipulating the media. As an example there is this:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

By itself it's very questionable. But when the following is taken into consideration, it's hard not to come to a particular determination:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html

Who TF this dude? Hezboallah's death PR guy?

I don't like being played for a sucker. If others want to be useful idiots, fine, but it ain't me.

While I don't doubt that Hezbollah does their best to manipulate the media -- as does Israel, the Lebanese government and everybody else involved -- are you really taking this line of argumentation seriously?

They build a time-line based on the release timestamps of press photoes and are incredelous that the same rescue worker has been photographed during the rescue work at three different accidents?

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 12:30 AM

Nothing you quoted talks about how fresh the bodies are.

The word "fresh" does not appear on the web page I linked to.

So...Michelle Malkin didn't say it. Nobody on that page said it. I certainly didn't say it.

Will you admit you lied when you that site claims the bodies wern't "fresh enough"?

Neither were effects that would have resulted from an Israeli attack hours before. These were bodies that looked like they had been dead for days.

Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting — reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue — place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack.

are you standing by this crap or are you going to stop publishing this CT site in your sig? but let me guess...you are only advertising the page of links you are in no way advertising the content of those links... Lol

watch the swinging watch...it neeeeeever happened....

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 12:32 AM

While I don't doubt that Hezbollah does their best to manipulate the media -- as does Israel, the Lebanese government and everybody else involved -- are you really taking this line of argumentation seriously?

They build a time-line based on the release timestamps of press photoes and are incredelous that the same rescue worker has been photographed during the rescue work at three different accidents?
Its best not to try to comprehend conspiracy theories...its just sad when people you know get swept up in them.

a_unique_person

2nd August 2006, 12:33 AM

Neither were effects that would have resulted from an Israeli attack hours before. These were bodies that looked like they had been dead for days.

Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting — reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue — place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack.

are you standing by this crap or are you going to stop publishing this CT site in your sig? but let me guess...you are only advertising the page of links you are in no way advertising the content of those links... Lol

watch the swinging watch...it neeeeeever happened....

I think this thread should be moved to paranormal, not politics.

a_unique_person

2nd August 2006, 12:39 AM

Here is a quote from Michelle Malkins blog.

Michelle, once again you hit the nail on the head. No, you do not see any male jihadists in the death porn of Kana.
A comment by Sebastian on JW highlights another aspect (http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=9800) (link in French, use Babblefish for translation) of this STAGED massacre. . . .
Upon closer inspection, the pictures of the Cana bombing suggests that hezbollah might have rigged the house to explode several hours later, in order to kill a load of handicapped kids.
An oberservant nurse in France watched the pictures closely and believes that many of the children who died were disabled.
The pictures are here http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=9800
The article suggests that Hezbollah used the opportunity to get rid of their deformed children and pin the blame on the jews.
I’m utterly disgusted but not shocked. The ‘values’ and ‘morals’ (cough/spit) of Islamic society is something to be deeply, DEEPLY ASHAMED of.

See, the muslims actually used this as a win/win situation. They got rid of their handicapped kids, and blamed the jews. These are "cold hard facts".

http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/08/01/what-happened-in-qana/

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 12:47 AM

Neither were effects that would have resulted from an Israeli attack hours before. These were bodies that looked like they had been dead for days.

Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting — reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue — place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack.

This is truly bizarre. You're quoting this as though it's found on the page in my link, yet it's not there. It may well be on some other web-page out there, but you’re claiming it’s on the page linked to in my signature, but it’s not.

Again, you are a liar who can’t stop himself from lying.

are you standing by this crap or are you going to stop publishing this CT site in your sig? but let me guess...you are only advertising the page of links you are in no way advertising the content of those links... Lol

watch the swinging watch...it neeeeeever happened....

My signature stays as it is.

You have been caught lying. Again. Care to comment?

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 12:50 AM

This is truly bizarre. You're quoting this as though it's found on the page in my link, yet it's not there. It may well be on some other web-page out there, but you’re claiming it’s on the page linked to in my signature, but it’s not.

Mycroft, the web-page you linked to was a collection of links to other articles. Besides user comments on those articles, there wasn't anything on the page but further links. It's pretty obvious that it's the articles themselves you want to draw attention to, and not their links.

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 12:56 AM

Mycroft, the web-page you linked to was a collection of links to other articles. Besides user comments on those articles, there wasn't anything on the page but further links. It's pretty obvious that it's the articles themselves you want to draw attention to, and not their links.

If you go two or three steps away from what I link to, you're likely to find anything. The Fool claims I'm linking to something, not that I'm linking to something that links to something else.

His claim is wrong, he knew it from the beginning, he's a barefaced liar.

FireGarden

2nd August 2006, 01:04 AM

No, Mycroft.
You linked to links. Why not link to the articles you want us to read? If you link to links, you want us to read the links.

If you want us to read Malkin (who gets it):
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005640.htm

That page says "The bodies looked like they had been dead for days."

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 01:05 AM

If you go two or three steps away from what I link to, you're likely to find anything. The Fool claims I'm linking to something, not that I'm linking to something that links to something else.

He quoted from this (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/188571.php) article, which is linked directly from the page you refer to with the link-title "Were the Qana bodies stage?"

True, it doesn't use the expression "doesn't look fresh enough," but that is an accurate paraphrase of what the article claims, and The_Fool never claimed it as an exact quote.

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 01:10 AM

No, Mycroft.
You linked to links. Why not link to the articles you want us to read? If you link to links, you want us to read the links.

What's on that page very prominently -such that it dwarfs the links- is a video. A video of Michelle Malkin.

Thank you for at least pointing out where the Fool got his quote from.

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 01:16 AM

What's on that page very prominently -such that it dwarfs the links- is a video. A video of Michelle Malkin.

Thanks for explaining that. The video doesn't show up in my browser.

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 01:18 AM

Thanks for explaining that. The video doesn't show up in my browser.

I guess that would be confusing then. :)

gumboot

2nd August 2006, 01:20 AM

Just throwing a random question out there...

How do we know what actually happened in Qana? To my understanding, the classic feature of a Conspiracy Theory is it claims given events using faulty evidence in conflict of more substantial evidence.

That is not what is happening here. Now, with the information we have available, Occam's Razor would certainly indicate the most likely explanation is Hizbollah were using the area to attack Israel, the IDF fired back, and killed a whole bunch of civilians (does anyone have an up to date count, by the way? I've heard a range from less than 30 up to over 60...).

Any other explanation other than that seems to make assumptions that lack evidence to support them - namely that Israel specifically targetted civilians or that Hizbollah staged the entire thing.

So Occam's Razor discredits both these explanations at present.

However... at present there is precious little evidence of what ACTUALLY happened. I don't think anyone has presented a scenario that directly contradicts solid evidence yet... which would qualify it for woo woo CT status.

Now, the theory that Hizbollah staged the event to some degree seems pretty obvious - all the journalists turned up at the exact same time that rescue efforts started, despite rough terrain, 8 hours after the site was hit.

Now, that doesn't mean the ATTACK was fake, or the bodies were planted, it just means the RESCUE OPERATION was staged for the benefit of the media (it had to happen anyway, hey, might as well get some good PR out of it).

This is certainly PLAUSIBLE, given the track record of such organisations. I would suggest that anyone who thinks Islamic Terrorists wouldn't stage a rescue operation primarily for the benefit of western media, I think you're being painfully naive.

At the same time, it is an EXTRAORDINARY claim to suggest that the bodies were somehow planted there, and there is no evidence the bodies were planted at this time.

-Andrew

FireGarden

2nd August 2006, 01:22 AM

The video doesn't play in my browser either. I didn't even know there was one.

(Explorer 4, btw! Probably an activeX problem. I get a memo saying the page may not display correctly)

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 01:31 AM

Thanks for explaining that. The video doesn't show up in my browser.

I guess that would be confusing then. :)

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 01:39 AM

Just throwing a random question out there...

How do we know what actually happened in Qana? To my understanding, the classic feature of a Conspiracy Theory is it claims given events using faulty evidence in conflict of more substantial evidence.

I don't think a conspiracy theory necessarily have to be in conflict with other evidence. For instance, to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because of sublimal brainwashing by the CIA is clearly a conspiracy theory. There's no real support for it, but it doesn't actually conflict with the known facts either. After all, there's no evidence that the CIA didn't brainwash him.

While some of the more paranoid conspiracy theories will spend a lot of time explaining away evidence to the contrary, I think that the defining issue of conspiract theories is their "anit-Occamian" nature; that they create a more convoluted explanation than is necessary to match the available evidence.

Any other explanation other than that seems to make assumptions that lack evidence to support them - namely that Israel specifically targetted civilians or that Hizbollah staged the entire thing.

So Occam's Razor discredits both these explanations at present.

I think it would be more precise to say that Occan's Razor discredits a conviction in either of these explanations at the present. The explanations themselves are valid, but at this point strictly hypotethical.

a_unique_person

2nd August 2006, 01:51 AM

Malkin's own blog http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005640.htm

She is a CT of the first order, along with her faithful followers.

gtc

2nd August 2006, 01:56 AM

your link is not working but I'm familiar with the pictures.....They look like people showing off dead babies and children. Do you think this is an unusual behavior? My own experiences are from a long long time ago but when you move into a villiage someone had shelled "just in case" then people would sometimes bring out the body of a baby or a child or an old woman and show it to you... sometimes sobbing, sometimes angry, sometimes very calm..they just want someone to know what happened there. If there was a journalist that journalist would often be taken to view more bodies or graves....

sorry but this just makes me want to puke, imagine the response of these grubs if someone posted AP pictures of Israeli civilian dead and claimed there was a conspiracy behind it..

TF, link works for me.

My thoughts are running along the lines of gumboot's latest post.

I have looked at the photos which seem to come from different sources and seem to have different time stamps.

I was wondering if you ever came across a recovery mission that was stage managed. By this I mean something along the lines of making sure everyone has a good picture from a number of angles and re-enacting the scene in different ways for effect.

This seems possible to me and is a different order of magnitude from a controlled demolition or bringing bodies in from elsewhere. I have seen no evidence of that (but haven't looked).

gumboot

2nd August 2006, 02:01 AM

While some of the more paranoid conspiracy theories will spend a lot of time explaining away evidence to the contrary, I think that the defining issue of conspiract theories is their "anit-Occamian" nature; that they create a more convoluted explanation than is necessary to match the available evidence.

I think it would be more precise to say that Occan's Razor discredits a conviction in either of these explanations at the present. The explanations themselves are valid, but at this point strictly hypotethical.

Yup, I think you have it better summarised than me, I agree. :)

-Andrew

gumboot

2nd August 2006, 02:06 AM

I was wondering if you ever came across a recovery mission that was stage managed. By this I mean something along the lines of making sure everyone has a good picture from a number of angles and re-enacting the scene in different ways for effect.

I mainly suggested the liklihood of this based on the personal experiences of a large number of people I know who served in various capacities in either Bosnia or Palestine/Israel (and some, both).

The staging of tragedies for the benefit of western media and the United Nations seems to be a tactic of Islamic Fundamentalists that has a history. Such staging can vary considerably - from simply bringing journalists and UN to specific locations for PR, to actually stage-managing such events, to (in rare cases) initiated killings of their own civilians in the presence of westerners and the UN.

-Andrew

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 02:36 AM

TF, link works for me.

yes, it works for me too now I suspect a conspiracy :)

My thoughts are running along the lines of gumboot's latest post.

I have looked at the photos which seem to come from different sources and seem to have different time stamps.

I was wondering if you ever came across a recovery mission that was stage managed. By this I mean something along the lines of making sure everyone has a good picture from a number of angles and re-enacting the scene in different ways for effect.

Only a very few times on large scale unit movements we had journalists tagging along. They were warzone reporters and photographers and were very switched on, they would be dead in no time if they were not..we showed them things that made our case look better, others showed them things that they wanted seen too. I cannot understand what people think is unusual about showing bodies to photographers.. We did it when we wanted them to see weapons and uniforms and tunnel entrances etc.... sometimes weapons were planted on bodies too.

This seems possible to me and is a different order of magnitude from a controlled demolition or bringing bodies in from elsewhere. I have seen no evidence of that (but haven't looked).
No need to look far, Mycrofts sig link has it pretty will nailed down...or you could go to the blog of the person Mycroft links in his sig and believes "gets it" because she is a major champion of that particular conspiracy theory.

Darat

2nd August 2006, 03:19 AM

....snip...
...snip...

I cannot understand what people think is unusual about showing bodies to photographers..

...snip...

Especially when we see it time and time again whenever bodies are recovered in rescue attempts from earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, floods and so on. A very recent example is from the Indonesian tsunami a week or so ago that killed over 650 people. We saw on TV and in newspapers here in the UK photographs of dead bodies, I saw a very poignant clip of man just holding a dead child with tears flooding down his eyes on Channel 4 news.

Apollyon

2nd August 2006, 06:58 AM

While I don't doubt that Hezbollah does their best to manipulate the media -- as does Israel, the Lebanese government and everybody else involved -- are you really taking this line of argumentation seriously?

They build a time-line based on the release timestamps of press photoes and are incredelous that the same rescue worker has been photographed during the rescue work at three different accidents?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-need-to-know-truth.html

The "green helmet guy" is parading the same dead girl around. He even had time for a quick costume change.

So, yes, I take this line of argumentation seriously.

gumboot

2nd August 2006, 07:00 AM

The "green helmet guy" is parading the same dead girl around. He even had time for a quick costume change.

One of the sites spotted him doing the exact same thing at Qana in 1996...

Incidentally... he appears to be (from his dress in these and the 96 photos) to be Lebanese Military...perhaps a medic or engineer or something?

-Andrew

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 08:18 AM

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-need-to-know-truth.html

The "green helmet guy" is parading the same dead girl around. He even had time for a quick costume change.

You mean, between carrying the girl to the guerney and unloading the ambulance at the morgue? I personally don't find it all that mysterious that a rescue worker takes off his protective gear when he's left the danger zone. It's hot, heavy and uncomfortable.

This is the same kind of photo "analysis" you'll see from people doing 9/11 conspirance theories or Bigfoot searches, just slightly more litterate. They see something that strikes them as strange and immediatelytake that as evidence for foul play, not bothering to take five minutes to consider if things actually strange.

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 09:16 AM

The entire scenario at Qana was strange from day one.
A lot of things don't add up.

Which is why an IDF investigation is being conducted, and has not yet concluded. There is a wealth of detail that needs to be sifted through, before the truth is known.

At the very least, I would like to know who this "Green Helmet Guy" is.
What is his exact role, and what is his connection to Hezbollah?

Apollyon

2nd August 2006, 09:25 AM

You mean, between carrying the girl to the guerney and unloading the ambulance at the morgue? I personally don't find it all that mysterious that a rescue worker takes off his protective gear when he's left the danger zone. It's hot, heavy and uncomfortable.

This is the same kind of photo "analysis" you'll see from people doing 9/11 conspirance theories or Bigfoot searches, just slightly more litterate. They see something that strikes them as strange and immediatelytake that as evidence for foul play, not bothering to take five minutes to consider if things actually strange.
Yeah, I'm sure he's just doing his job because we so often see rescue workers holding dead children up in the air for photo ops. It's SOP.

Darat

2nd August 2006, 09:39 AM

Yeah, I'm sure he's just doing his job because we so often see rescue workers holding dead children up in the air for photo ops. It's SOP.

It is.

See:

Note: these are photographs of rescuers holding and carrying dead bodies.

http://www.nppa.org/competitions/best_of_still_photojournalism/2005/photography/winners/egress.cfm?cat=MAN&place=3rd&img=102576

http://in.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids_new/20050313/3892559909.jpg

http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_lupe/0,,1447614_ind_1,00.html

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 09:51 AM

Yeah, I'm sure he's just doing his job because we so often see rescue workers holding dead children up in the air for photo ops. It's SOP.

I have seen numerous photoes of rescue workers carrying children, alive or dead, in their arms in a similar manner from other disasters. That kind of photo is almost a journalistic staple.

Apollyon

2nd August 2006, 10:25 AM

I have seen numerous photoes of rescue workers carrying children, alive or dead, in their arms in a similar manner from other disasters. That kind of photo is almost a journalistic staple.
Carrying them in their arms I can understand. Holding them up in the air like some trophy is disgusting though:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/game-set-and-match.html

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 10:46 AM

Carrying them in their arms I can understand. Holding them up in the air like some trophy is disgusting though:

To me it looks like the child is being handed down, not "held up in the air."

That said, I suppose that if someone was worried about whether the photos from Quana was staged, they should get in touch with Unifil and try to get a comment from the Unifil soldiers who were there.

Azure

2nd August 2006, 10:53 AM

Have you seen how popular Hezbollah has become? How unpopular America and the Lebanese politicians associated with it have become? Instead of marginalising allies in Lebanon and strengthing enemies, Israel and the US could have done the reverse.

So you think if Israel would just isolate themselves from Hezbollah, the terrorists would disappear?

You see, thats the problem with all you peaceniks. You believe peace can be accomplished through nothing, no bloodshed, no death, no destruction. And you still continue to believe this, DESPITE history proving you wrong time and time again.

Apollyon

2nd August 2006, 11:08 AM

To me it looks like the child is being handed down, not "held up in the air."
Maybe, except there are photos with two completely different backgrounds that seem to throw cold water on that claim. You can tell by the people in the photo they were taken at seperate times.

Besides that, wouldn't they wrap a dead body in a sheet or something to show a bit of respect for the dead?

That said, I suppose that if someone was worried about whether the photos from Quana was staged, they should get in touch with Unifil and try to get a comment from the Unifil soldiers who were there.
Hopefully someone does that but UINFIL seems to hesitate to provide much in the way of facts where Hezbollah is concerned. Considering their lack of openess to discuss Hezbollah taking up positions around their observation posts, at least until word got out through alternate channels, I'm not sure I trust them to be forthcoming.

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 11:15 AM

I suppose that if someone was worried about whether the photos from Quana was staged, they should get in touch with Unifil and try to get a comment from the Unifil soldiers who were there.

Many people are wondering/worried about the entire sequence of events at Qana, and are placing their questions and concerns in blogs, websites, and even a rather convoluted wiki article.

Yes, it would be useful to see comments of UNIFIL personnel.
Have any journalists interviewed them?

Yes, it would be useful to ascertain the identity of "Green Helmet Guy"
What efforts have the media made in this regard?

Yes, it is going to be interesting to view the real-time IAF recon videos.
The video being circulated on the web is not from 1am 7-31.

Asking questions and being skeptical of the events as presented by Hezbollah (as they organized the access for journalists to Qana) is not "turning into a full-blown 'the bodies were staged' conspiracy theorist" (which is what those of us who are skeptical of what we have been told by Hezbollah are now acting like, according to T-F).

Mycroft

2nd August 2006, 11:21 AM

Yes, it would be useful to ascertain the identity of "Green Helmet Guy"
What efforts have the media made in this regard?

From LGF, green helmut guy on Al Jazeera video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZsq3jyJ6w&mode=related&search=qana%20

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 11:30 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745292.html

ACRI asks for independent investigation of QANA.

Leif Roar

2nd August 2006, 11:39 AM

Maybe, except there are photos with two completely different backgrounds that seem to throw cold water on that claim. You can tell by the people in the photo they were taken at seperate times.

See my earlier comment about photo "analysis." These photos does not strike me as remarkable in the least, nor would I say they look as if they're staged.

Besides that, wouldn't they wrap a dead body in a sheet or something to show a bit of respect for the dead?

Sometimes rescue workers do, and sometimes they don't, but they'd rarely do that while inside a potentially unstable building. It's not in any way suspicious that they haven't done so in these pictures.

Hopefully someone does that but UINFIL seems to hesitate to provide much in the way of facts where Hezbollah is concerned. Considering their lack of openess to discuss Hezbollah taking up positions around their observation posts, at least until word got out through alternate channels, I'm not sure I trust them to be forthcoming.

Their lack of openness? They mention it in the daily press briefings they publish it on their web-page!

Apollyon

2nd August 2006, 11:55 AM

See my earlier comment about photo "analysis." These photos does not strike me as remarkable in the least, nor would I say they look as if they're staged.
You may want to check out the video Mycroft linked a few posts above this one. Sure looks as if there was some staging going on.

Sometimes rescue workers do, and sometimes they don't, but they'd rarely do that while inside a potentially unstable building. It's not in any way suspicious that they haven't done so in these pictures.
The video linked above pretty much throws cold water on that, as there is one shot of them using a sheet inside the building. Building collapse doesn't seem to be a concern.

Their lack of openness? They mention it in the daily press briefings they publish it on their web-page!
The UN somehow forgot to mention Hezbollah being around the observation post that was attacked by Israel until a Canadian General called them on it. Suddenly their reporting memory was restored.

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 03:54 PM

Asking questions and being skeptical of the events as presented by Hezbollah (as they organized the access for journalists to Qana) is not "turning into a full-blown 'the bodies were staged' conspiracy theorist" (which is what those of us who are skeptical of what we have been told by Hezbollah are now acting like, according to T-F).
No web....you use the standard conspiracy theorist approach. Exactly the same as the 911 conspiracy theorists and the jews control the world banks theorists and all the other crackpot theorists. You Suggest a scenario dreamed up after viewing some photos.... lamely say that, of course, it cannot be absolutey proven beyond doubt but that it reeely makes you think and reeeeely does demand further investigation.

you do it here...
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1813161&postcount=280

it does you no credit to behave in that way....

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 04:32 PM

C'mon T-F, we're havin' some good fun here, why go and spoil it for us?

The Qana debacle, whatever happened, is past, it's off the radar already.
Do you really think most people care if it was an IAF attack, or a set-up by Hezbollywood? We're numb to it all. It's all part of the war and none of it will make a bit of difference in the long run. Does it change the overall scheme of things?
No, here we are Wenesday Aug. 2nd, and Qana is nearly forgotten, after just a few days; as was the family on the Beit Lahiyeh (gaza) beach, forgotten only a few days after June 9th. Same as dozens of other incidents of palestinians and lebanese getting killed as a result of the Hamas and Hezbollah jihadists attempting to push Israel around and finding out the hard way ---
Big Mistake.

The Israel Air Force dropped leaflets Wednesday morning in 10 villages in south Lebanon, up to 20km north of the border, urging residents to leave their homes immediately if they did not wish to endanger their lives.

IAF has resumed their bombing campaign, and guess what?
Israeli warplanes raided a Lebanon army base in the south Lebanon village of Sarba on Wednesday morning. The jets fired at least one missile on the base in a hilly region where Hezbollah is also believed to have offices and bases. Three Lebanese Army soldiers were killed instantly, said a Lebanese official.

Uh-Oh. Better convene the UN Security Council again and make some more 'tsk-tsk' noises.

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 06:58 PM

C'mon T-F, we're havin' some good fun here, why go and spoil it for us?

can you tell me what aspects of the events at Kana you find particularly good fun? would it have been as much fun if the dead were Israeli?

a_unique_person

2nd August 2006, 07:04 PM

The Israeli military's inquiry on the bombing of a building in the south Lebanese village of Qana that killed 56 civilians admits a mistake but charges that Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as human shields for their rocket attacks, a statement early Thursday said.

Israeli planes attacked an apartment house in Qana in the early hours of Sunday. The house collapsed, and rescue workers pulled the bodies of civilians, most of them women and children, out of the rubble. An international outcry led Israel to call a suspension of its airstrikes in Lebanon for 48 hours and increased pressure for a cease-fire in the three-week-old offensive against Hezbollah.

In a statement summarizing the inquiry findings, the military said Israel did not know there were civilians in the building.

"Had the information indicated that civilians were present ... the attack would not have been carried out," the statement said.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/08/02/ap2923719.html

a_unique_person

2nd August 2006, 07:06 PM

The US-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch today put the death toll from an Israeli air strike at the Lebanese village of Qana at 28 and 13 missing, below the official Lebanese figure of 54 dead.
The incident on July 30 was one of the deadliest strikes in the 22-day-old war between Israel and the Lebanese-based Hizbollah guerrillas and jolted international efforts to resolve the conflict.
"The initial estimate of 54 persons killed was based on a register of 63 persons who had sought shelter in the basement of the building that was struck, and rescue teams having located nine survivors," Human Rights Watch said in a statement today.
"It now appears that at least 22 people escaped the basement, and 28 are confirmed dead, according to records from the Lebanese Red Cross and the government hospital in Tyre," Human Right Watch said in a statement. It gave the names and ages of those killed.
The other 13 people were missing and presumed by some Qana residents to be buried in the rubble.
Of the 28 dead, 16 were children, Human Rights Watch said.
The group said it based its report in part on interviews with two witnesses to the Qana attack, one who was in the building during the strike and a second person who lived in the neighbourhood and assisted in the recovery.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/israel-admits-qana-mistake/2006/08/03/1154198239796.html

HRW obviously hasn't got in touch with Michelle Malkin yet.

gumboot

2nd August 2006, 07:54 PM

Hopefully we can now put all this "planted bodies" and "war crime" nonsense behind us now.

-Andrew

Azure

2nd August 2006, 08:02 PM

Hopefully we can now put all this "planted bodies" and "war crime" nonsense behind us now.

-Andrew

I doubt it. The other threads about this go 7 pages and still stay the exact same.

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 08:08 PM

Hopefully we can now put all this "planted bodies" and "war crime" nonsense behind us now.

-Andrew
I would't be so quick to put the "planted bodies" thing behind you...the people who put out these reports may be in on it......you certainly won't get Mycroft to pull his sig advertisement of these conspiracy theories quite yet...there is still a shred of deniability available.

webfusion

2nd August 2006, 09:29 PM

can you tell me what aspects of the events at Kana you find particularly good fun? would it have been as much fun if the dead were Israeli?

Good fun parsing the conspiracy theorists.

Or don't you get a kick out of that?

BTW, I am absolutely in shock at the term used by The Age -- "The initial estimate of 54 persons killed was based on a register of 63 persons who had sought shelter in the basement of the building that was struck, and rescue teams having located nine survivors," Human Rights Watch said in a statement today.

A register? WTF ??????????????????????

Hold on there, bucko, that is a tremendous glitch in this entire scenario.
Who placed these people on "a register" and why?

Was this a "Refugee Hotel" for the Hezbollah? And the names of the people were recorded, for what purpose?

I have a serious issue with that entire concept, as reported by HRW as if it was a normal course of events.

Doesn't it make you wonder, as a skeptic, what was "a register" being made for? This is an incredibly valuable piece of the puzzle.

The Fool

2nd August 2006, 11:21 PM

Good fun parsing the conspiracy theorists.

Or don't you get a kick out of that?

BTW, I am absolutely in shock at the term used by The Age -- "The initial estimate of 54 persons killed was based on a register of 63 persons who had sought shelter in the basement of the building that was struck, and rescue teams having located nine survivors," Human Rights Watch said in a statement today.

A register? WTF ??????????????????????

Hold on there, bucko, that is a tremendous glitch in this entire scenario.
Who placed these people on "a register" and why?

Was this a "Refugee Hotel" for the Hezbollah? And the names of the people were recorded, for what purpose?

I have a serious issue with that entire concept, as reported by HRW as if it was a normal course of events.

Doesn't it make you wonder, as a skeptic, what was "a register" being made for? This is an incredibly valuable piece of the puzzle.
sigh...give me a break web. If the place was nominated as a civil defence shelter. A place people are told to go.....Then it would seem sensible to keep track of who are the people using it . But hey....don't let me get in between you and the next chapter of your conspiracy theory...but please don't use "doesn't it make you wonder" when you are trying to spin something out of nothing...the accepted phrase is "doesn't it make you think"

I think you should read up about proper civil defence procedures, logging who uses what bomb shelters is a very sound practice when you have to make bodies out of the bits and decide who is dead..

FireGarden

3rd August 2006, 01:43 AM

gumboot

3rd August 2006, 01:47 AM

And remember!
Hezbollah controls the media!

Why is it so many people can't tell the difference between

"Control the media"

and

"Control media access"?

-Andrew

zenith-nadir

3rd August 2006, 03:33 AM

Aug. 3, 2006 12:02 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1154525796295&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The IDF inquiry into the Kana incident in which civilians were killed as a building collapsed released its final conclusions Thursday morning.

Two missiles, the only one of which exploded, hit the building on July 30.

On Wednesday, both the Lebanese Health Ministry and the Human Rights Watch said that they could confirm only 28 of the originally reported 57 civilians who died in the building.

Since the beginning of the conflict, over 150 rockets have been launched from within the village of Kana itself and areas adjacent to it.(emphasis mine)

The death toll in the Kana bombing is now cut in half, down from 57 to 28. Nothing to be proud of, just another example why I personally don't believe initial reports.

It reminds me of the "massacre” in Jenin where Nabil Sha'ath, Hassan Abdel Rahman, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Saeb Erakat claimed a massacre of hundreds and mass graves... essentially lying to the world.

The sad part is the media took the bait...especially the European media.

Thursday, 18 April, 2002, 10:44 GMT 11:44 UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm) - BBC

A British forensic expert who has gained access to the West Bank city of Jenin says evidence points to a massacre by Israeli forces.

16/04/2002 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$IWRB3RYAAF115QFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/16/wmid16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/04/16/ixport.html) - telegraph.co.uk

Kamal Anis, 28, said he saw an Israeli bulldozer scooping up 30 bodies and dumping them beside a ruined house. It knocked down the building, covering the corpses with rubble. It then drove over the pile, levelling it into a crude mass grave.

The Israeli forces say that about 70 Palestinians died in Jenin. The extent of the destruction indicates that the Palestinian estimate of hundreds may be more accurate.

(emphasis mine)

Leif Roar

3rd August 2006, 03:39 AM

(emphasis mine)

The death toll in the Kana bombing is now cut in half, down from 57 to 28. Nothing to be proud of, just another example why I personally don't believe initial reports.

Not really. You're confusing the confirmed death toll with the presumed death toll. The former will always be less than or equal to the latter.

gumboot

3rd August 2006, 03:45 AM

Not really. You're confusing the confirmed death toll with the presumed death toll. The former will always be less than or equal to the latter.

I can't speak for other media... but the media in New Zealand had been reporting the death toll as "at least 54 civilians confirmed dead" since day two (day one was "at least 60").

Despite a more accurate tally, they are still reporting it as 54 confirmed dead.

Not that it really makes any difference...

-Andrew

Leif Roar

3rd August 2006, 04:08 AM

I can't speak for other media... but the media in New Zealand had been reporting the death toll as "at least 54 civilians confirmed dead" since day two (day one was "at least 60").

Well, that's simply wrong and incredibly sloppy journalistic work. Initial casualty numbers are for all practical concerns always estimates, and usually they're biased towards worst case scenarios and will be reduced as more accurate information gets collected and forwarded.

For what it's worth, according to BBC news "[Human Rights Watch] said 28 bodies had been recovered and 13 people were still missing."

webfusion

3rd August 2006, 09:43 AM

Cleon

3rd August 2006, 09:48 AM

Mycroft

3rd August 2006, 09:57 AM

Not really. You're confusing the confirmed death toll with the presumed death toll. The former will always be less than or equal to the latter.

Not really. Often death tolls will go up with time as new victims are found or people who were previously wounded die due to injuries.

Mycroft

3rd August 2006, 10:53 AM

Er, no. Israel was responsible, you were incorrect, you won't own up to it, so instead you're just going to blame Hizballah anyway.

Tell me Cleon, what would happen if you suggested to your buddies at ANSWER that in the next demonstration you guys organize that you put up a few signs condemning Tehran and Damascus for their role in supporting Hezbollah?

What do you think they would say to that?

Leif Roar

3rd August 2006, 10:57 AM

Not really. Often death tolls will go up with time as new victims are found or people who were previously wounded die due to injuries.

Yes, estimates can certainly go up, but my point is that the number of confirmed dead and the estimated number of dead is two different things. The number of confirmed dead is a lower bound -- there's at least this many dead. The estimate might be higher, but it can't be lower.

The earlier number of 54 dead was an estimate of the total death toll. The later number of 28 was not an estimate of the total, but the number of confirmed dead.

Pardalis

3rd August 2006, 04:06 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745828.html
Israel Defense Forces' concluded their inquiry on the bombing of a building in Qana that killed the 28 civilians, and admits "a mistake."

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz apologized for the loss of civilian life but charged that Hezbollah "uses civilians as human shields and intentionally operates from within civilian villages and infrastructure."

In other words --- Hezbollah is to blame.

Not that it really makes any difference...

So israel is responsible (emphasis mine)

Oh, and you forgot the last line of the article:

"Human Rights Watch called for an impartial international investigation of the incident."

In other words, the international opinion won't let Israel off the hook as easily as you did. ;)

a_unique_person

3rd August 2006, 04:31 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745828.html
Israel Defense Forces' concluded their inquiry on the bombing of a building in Qana that killed the 28 civilians, and admits "a mistake."

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz apologized for the loss of civilian life but charged that Hezbollah "uses civilians as human shields and intentionally operates from within civilian villages and infrastructure."

In other words --- Hezbollah is to blame.

Not that it really makes any difference...

The assumption is that people could leave at will. That is hardly the case. When you flee, what happens? You leave all your goods behind, possibly the old and infirm, (as stories have told). If you leave, will there be a house to come back to? Will you be allowed to return to it? In this case, handicapped children need special means to be transported. If you have transport, will you be attacked when you move?