<< BURN THE HERETIC! ~ MAIN ~ VANISHING ISLAND LATEST >>
QUIT DIGGING, ALREADY
Our pals at The Australian aren’t letting go of their fake ambulance attack story without a fight:
The Israeli army has admitted its soldiers may have fired on a Red Cross ambulance during the war in Lebanon - an incident Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed was a hoax that had duped a gullible Australian and international media.
The claims centred on a controversial July 23 attack in southern Lebanon in which two Red Cross ambulances were destroyed, either by artillery or missiles - injuring at least six Lebanese, including one man whose leg was later amputated.
Later amputated? At the time, The Australian claimed the Magical Jew Missile had performed the operation itself, before thoughtfully cauterising the wound and evaporating without trace.
Initial media reports claimed the Israeli Defence Force targeted the vehicles, firing a missile directly through the roof of one ambulance using the international Red Cross symbol as a target marker.
Others blamed Israeli artillery or armed unmanned drones.
“Media reports”? “Others”? These claims appeared in The Australian, which now appears to be backing away from its previous reporting.
An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility.
Oh, really? Let’s see:
“We (IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety,” Captain Benjamin Rutland said. “It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.
“There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don’t have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure.”
To use News Ltd argot: they got nothin’.
While admitting the possibility of a tragic mistake, Captain Rutland cited several incidents during the recent Lebanon conflict in which Hezbollah fighters had stage-managed or misrepresented evidence of civilian casualties.
In August, Mr Downer slammed Australian and international media for not checking facts and branded reports of the alleged attack on the ambulance a hoax.
His comments were based on unverified evidence carried on an unattributed right-wing website, Zombietime.com.
Unverified? Unattributed? Unbelievable. Click, click, click, click, click for earlier items on this. Also click here for Nick Charles’ take.
This is by-the-book IDF response, do not deny absolutely when asked, when the IDF haven’t had the opportunity, nor are likely to, verify the details. And they should know this, having had experience of this standard response, eg the beach accusations, many times before.
Or, there’s no proof we did, and no proof we didn’t, just accusations flinging mud.
Oh, this is very shoddy journalism:
THE Israeli army has admitted its soldiers may have fired on a Red Cross ambulance during the war in Lebanon - an incident Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed was a hoax that had duped a gullible Australian and international media.
(snip)
An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility.
“We (IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety,” Captain Benjamin Rutland said. “It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.
What in hell is “may have fired on”? In my estimation, it’s deliberately targeting something. The Israelis certainly did not admit that.
If on the other hand it simply means shooting guns or artillery at enemy combatants and something unintentionally hits some other target, what’s the worth of that little gem of understanding? That is part of war, part of the very large part called unfortunate results.
This article is simply biased reporting. It has no place in the MSM today.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 12 27 at 09:43 AM • permalinkOh for Christ sakes…HERE, is what caused the the damn hole.
They weren’t “fired”, as such. The week old package, sent by someone’s MOM, which made them impossible to eat, was sucked out of the helicopter door as it was opened, for one of the IDF soldiers had to take a piss.
And what better area to take a piss, then on a bunch of Jimmy Carter’s friends playing?
Hot Air reports that Human Rights Watch has “debunked” Zombie’s debunking. Zombie promises a response to the HRW report.
Apparently there is such a thing as “Dense Inert Metal Explosive” (DIME), as referred to in the HRW report, which might cause the sort of damage reported in the ambulance story.
HOWEVER, I remain skeptical of the entire story.
First, from the Global Security article, “The American version is still in a testing stage and had not been used on the battlefield at that time (i.e., October 2006)”.
Second, if the IDF had them, I find it difficult to accept that the IDF targeted ambulances for no clear reason. Not when their rules of engagement require them to call ahead to homes of Palestinian terrorists when bombing them.
Third, if the IDF had targeted those ambulances, Hezbollah can only blame themselves, since there are videos on the INTERNET showing Hezbollah deliberately using ambulances to transport troops—a clear violation of the laws of war (although Hezbollah is not a signatory, that lets Israel off the hook).
Finally, Hezbollah is not above lying. Oh, far from it. The ambulances may never have been hit with DIME like ordinance at all, and the story was faked simply to generate publicity.
And, quite frankly, I will believe Israel over the Hezbollah any day. I do not indulge in moral equivilency, and do not consider Hezbollah and any Lebanonese sympathizers as being reliable sources. Terrorists seldom are.
HRW, to their credit, has produced a plausible explanation for this story. If the reports on the DIME are accurate, it’s possible that the ambulances were attacked by Israel.
But I’m putting it in the “unproven, if not unprovable” category, until and unless Israel admits it. The evidence (IMHO) is circumstatial at best. And I suspect that if the IDF did attack those ambulances, they had a reason to do so. They may have made a mistake, but we may never know for sure.
And if Israel is using DIME warheads, kudos to them! That reads as a very accurate and highly focused anti-personnel weapon, the sort of thing needed to kill terrorists when their idiot followers act as human shields.
And we all know that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 27 at 10:26 AM • permalinkI should also note that Hezbollah may really hate DIME ordinance—it promises to be VERY effective against them—and is trying to whip up public sentiment against them as “inhumane” weapons.
Or Hezbollah is just trying to discredit Israel (again), along the lines of that stupid “White phosphorous is a chemical weapon”, since the DIME has been reported in the MSM as being “highly carcinogenic and harmful to the environment” (see the Global Security article link above).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 27 at 10:31 AM • permalinkI say bunk on that DIME on the ambulances thing.
It’s still a blast device. Maybe not designed as a large blast to scatter heavy shrapnel over so many meters of radius but it’s still a blast device. There is no outward buckling in that ambulance that would indicate any interior blast.
The DIME still relies on, at least partially, projected material for some of its damage potential, its just not heavy shrap and there was nothing in the pics of the ambo interior that give indication of any impact dmg. The floor and frame of the vehicle would at least be bent downward at the point of impact/focus of directed blast.
This appears to be nothing more than liars grasping at imaginary straws.
It’s still a blast device. Maybe not designed as a large blast to scatter heavy shrapnel over so many meters of radius but it’s still a blast device. There is no outward buckling in that ambulance that would indicate any interior blast.
I’ve not seen any examples of DIME blast effects, so that’s certainly possible, Grimmy. Insufficient data, as Spock might say.
But I am skeptical of the entire story, not in small part because Hezbollah is involved.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 27 at 12:06 PM • permalinkBut I am skeptical of the entire story, not in small part because Hezbollah is involved.
That, and the reaction of the press to being questioned.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 12 27 at 12:16 PM • permalink(oops) Seems a lot like the Duke “case,” to me. In that first there was a story that certain people wanted to be true, in order to buttress their own biases, and then the story fell apart, and then fell apart some more and so on.
We’ve got to make sure the Wolf of Reality doesn’t blow down our Straw House of Truthiness!
#6 The_Real_JeffS
As was pointed out in the HotAir comments, HRW: desperate liars grasping at straws.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 12 27 at 03:24 PM • permalinkHow does a fact-free item like this get published at The Australian? It’s not like its editors are out to liquid lunch or just plain retarded like they are at Fairfax.
But I’m beginning to rethink that. Come on Tim, you’re in the Murdoch stable - what’s happening there? Any chance of an expose in the Telly?
As was pointed out in the HotAir comments, HRW: desperate liars grasping at straws.
I missed that one, Spiny. I agree as well, HRW is probably clutching at straws.
The only problem is that HRW offers a semi-plausible explanation, one that fits the pre-conceived notions of the pro-Hezbollah/Anti-Israel factions. Or at least the useful idiots of the world.
Silly, but bigger whoppers have been swallowed with less information. Further, Israel has to prove that they did not attack the ambulances….and how does one prove a negative? Assuming that the opposition would accept such an explanation in the first place.
That’s why I put this in the “unproven, if not unprovable” category.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 27 at 04:36 PM • permalinkThis article is simply biased reporting. It has no place in the MSM today.
A noble sentiment, Wronwright. Bias, misrepresentation, or worse, appear to have become the tools of trade of media organisations such as AP, not just a few journos here and there. It is surprising that the Australian newspaper persists with this loser of a story, just as it always surprises me that there is so much denial going on within our ABC.
Again and again, I hear the earnest interviewer asking their quarry (this last time it was the new Chairman) about their commitment to Public Broadcasting.
It was a bit like asking a prospective convert about the catechism. Do you believe in public broadcasting do you support public broadcasting, do you accept public broadcasting as your saviour?
For the record, I love public broadcasting. I hate what some of the people who have a franchise there do with it. It looks like the Australian, too, needs to tighten its control over some of its contributors and editors. There are many more important issues to pursue than this ambulatory dead parrot.I wouldn’t have a problem with them if they stopped calling themselves “scientists” and used the term “lobbyists” instead.
Then they could line up with all the other good industries that are forced to use lobbyists these days to get anything done - tobacco, alcohol, drug and chemical manufacturing, uranium mining, oil drilling, forestry, freeway builders, landmine manufacturing, airport expansion etc etc etc.
I believe a lot of the “scientific” hoo-ha is just a cover to gain more funding.
Want to go to that conference in Rio? Describe it as a global warming bash.
Need a new supercomputer in the lab? Say that it will be used for climate change modelling.
Need some more research assistants? Describe them as climate change analysts.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 12 27 at 06:05 PM • permalink#22 Bugger. Got this in the wrong thread. Apologies.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 12 27 at 06:06 PM • permalinkHRW has this picture (about half way down the page) of the damage done to the Shaita family van when it was hit by what HRW claims was an Israeli limited destruction missile. It looks an awful lot like the ambulance’s interior damage in this Zombietime pix. I have only a vague recollection of the van hit. Did Israel take responsibility for it?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 12 27 at 06:39 PM • permalinkThe interior damage…..some, Kyda. The roof, though, is not. Zombie’s photo is dead center of the cross; HRW is in a different location. The degree of damage is different as well. That’s a different ambulance, the one pictured here.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 27 at 07:10 PM • permalinkMy favorite thing about the great Tim of Blair…he uses the right contraction imperative: “they got nothin’.”
Posted by mencken_cynic on 2006 12 27 at 07:44 PM • permalinklike the plastic turkey, global warming, roswell jehovah’s witnesses and gough whitlam no amount of debunking, ridicule or common sense is going to kill this off while so many are desperate to believe.
Posted by eeniemeenie on 2006 12 27 at 08:23 PM • permalinkThe stray italics tag has been rounded up and returned to the paddock.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 12 27 at 08:27 PM • permalinkAlthough The Australian’s reporting of this matter has been shocking, I must give some credit to News Ltd. Specifically, as journalists of sister newspapers, Tim Blair (The Telegraph) and Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun) have had no compunction in tearing shreds off it.
I am not aware of such critical introspection at the ABC or Fairfax, who are usually only too quick to attack News Ltd. at the drop of a hat.
Let me get this straight. The Israelis have indiscriminately attacked ambulances with a weapon designed to minimize collateral damage. Being diabolically clever Jews instead of blowing it to pieces they put a hole in it and maimed one person. Why?
If they were trying to terrorize people surely blowing up the ambulance would be a better idea. If they were trying to take out a particular target without destroying the ambulance, what was that target and how did they know about it? Human Rights Watch’s scenario makes no sense.
The defense of the Arab claims is getting more and more complicated and contrived and implausible. It looks as if some people can’t bear to admit that they got taken in. That and they want to continue to champion the underdogs and for that they need underdogs who deserve support.
I’ll need a report from unbiased forensic experts before I’ll believe that this wasn’t a hoax. I don’t think this is going to happen.
Posted by Lloyd Flack on 2006 12 28 at 02:35 AM • permalinkIf they were trying to terrorize people surely blowing up the ambulance would be a better idea. If they were trying to take out a particular target without destroying the ambulance, what was that target and how did they know about it? Human Rights Watch’s scenario makes no sense.
When one hoax is exposed, they must come up with another, and another, until it becomes so bizarre that no amount of logic can penetrate it.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 12 28 at 02:43 AM • permalinkHmmm, it appears that I copied the wrong paragraph (the one following was the one I meant). No matter, the meaning is clear enough.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 12 28 at 02:44 AM • permalink#21 MannyC
Heads up: Human Rights Watch purports to debunk the debunkers.
Zombietime yet to respond.
zombietime.com is undergoing its semi-weekly ME-based DDOS attack and he’s/she’s unable to post his/her response at this time. Apparently, the overall number of such attacks are actually decreasing, but the Mohammed Picture Gallery is still a frequent source of cyber-hysteria in a number of Muslim countries.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 12 28 at 02:52 AM • permalinkJust a quick question. Who the F*** designs a weapon for hitting non-armoured (ie. non-military) targets that does f*** all damage and even if it hits a person doesn’t kill them?
What is this the Black Knight special?
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 12 28 at 10:57 AM • permalinkZombie’s rebuttal pretty much nails it. I especially admire the closing paragraph:
I’m not blinded by ideology: if new and convincing evidence emerges that Israel intentionally attacked the ambulances at Qana, then I will change my opinion and accept that the attack happened. But so far, I see no such conclusive evidence. For me at least, Human Rights Watch’s new report failed to make its case.
For me as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 28 at 01:40 PM • permalinkChoose only one:
1. The Lebanese Red Cross willingly, or under threats, cooperated in several propaganda exercises using old ambulance props - one even IN a junk yard - and randomly-chosen, uninterviewable hospital patients.
They have since quietly enjoyed conning the AP and The Australian, among many MSM, knowing the ICRC’s own reputation has not once been seriously questioned by any of them.2. The Israelis actually hit the ambulances and the people as presented in the radically conflicting reports.
PS.
I’ve just read Zombie’s entire treatment of the new HRW Report and I still have no reason to change what is my commonsense conclusion above - about a big wartime propaganda success. In fact I regard it as more certain.
Zombie’s analysis proves that HRW are naively self-serving and unprofessional in justifying what they - without compelling evidence - WANT to conclude is a deliberate or careless war crime by Israel.
This shows a complete anti-Israel bias, particularly since they show credulity and superficiality at very step in their so-called ‘demonstration of truth’.Has ANYONE read, after 5 months now, ANY analysis in the MSM as carefully critical of all these reports as Zombie offers?
Who really are ‘the armchair’ experts?What does this say about the anti-Israel bias of the all our major news sources?? Scary.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
And I thought Magic Missile was just a level one D&D spell.