I looked at the sources this guy gave me. And as I thought, it was al crap. The writer claimed sources said thinsg they didn't, ignored what was actually written in the articles, made really anti-common sense claims and even tried to cite pics as proof that didn't exist.
In a nut shell, here's what I wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=465203&all_topics=0http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=460374&LastModified=4675585228647243759&all_topics=0You know, I was going to just let this lie.
I mean the idea that the American media, which has been so pro-israel suddenly turned around one day and long with the UN and red Cross and numerouse other eyewitnesses would all suddenly conspire to frame israel for targeting civilans would be ludicrouse if it wasn't so sick. Especailly when the IDF pretty much said they were targeting civilians. (Oh sure they claimed that it was because hezzbollah was using "human shields. But why have human shields when you know your enemy has no compunction blasting through them to get to you?!)
But I decided to do something the cons apparently DIDN'T bother to do. Actually FOLLOW this guy's links see what they said.
Hmm, so where to start?
Well first, we have this..."
Unfortunately for Mr. Chaalan, it's doubtful the second ambulance exists and his ambulance wasn't struck by a missile at all."
Well that would be a big discrepency. Suddenly a second ambulance appears in the story when there wasn't before. And from what this guy says, there couldn't have been a second ambulance.
Here's the problem, if this guy has any evidence that there couldn't have been a second ambulence, he never shows it.
Oh he tells us it's "Italic
doubtful " there was a second ambulence and to prove it, he tells us to look here...
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast%26curPhoto=1But what exactly is on that page ?
This...
?x=380&y=226&sig=e5gth6Zrp.fmFnyJ1XjoxA--
How exactly Shrub pointing to himself while idioticly declaring that hezzbollah had been 'defeated " proves that there couldn't be a second ambulence escapes me. maybe it's "con logic".Admittedly there are over 404 pictures. I did look through several but still couldn't find what this guy was reffering too. Maybe I missed it. maybe it's on pic 384 or 401. But then why not just post the picture himself? Why make people search for a picture that doesn't seem to exist?
Of course there is another example of how this guy is full of shit on there being no second ambulence.
"
It seems when he first told the story, there was only one ambulance and the alleged missile strike took place on the 23. And that's also what he told the Red Cross, though the second ambulance was added. "
And here's the problem with that. either this guy is really sloppy and stupid OR he's LYING.
Why? because to show there is a discrepency he points us to this
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187Now remember, this guy claimed that this is the first time the story was told. he said in it that there was
no second ambulence.
So what does the story on that link actually say?
"
Immediately after we got the call we took three ambulances and headed to Qana," he said. "But three bombs nearly hit our first ambulance, so we turned back."
They attempted to head out to Qana a second time, but again their ambulances were attacked, and they returned to base. "They were keeping us away," Shaulan said. They succeeded a third time, just before 9 am. "
Maybe I am just a crazy liberal but doesn't an "s" on the end of the word ambulence imply a PLURAL..as in
MORE THEN ONE ?
Next we have the writer trying desperatly to spin this into saying that this couldn't have been a missle strike.
Lets start with the most obviouse probem with his logic, shall we?
"
It seems the missile that allegedly hit the van from above never managed to get inside."
Of course the actual missle apparently didn't get inside. Just as all the stories this guy posts (in his attemtp to create a conspiracy) says. And logic would hold this as well. If the missle had exploded inside the ambulence, there wouldn't have been survivors to talk about it later. Instead the shrapnel got in, causing further damage to the passengers. (again as the variouse articles all say)
But here's an even better example that this guy is full of crap.
Naturally any conspiracy theory needs to account for evidence that contradicts what they want to claim. And this guy is no different.
You see, he has to explain how, if that ambulence wasn'treally attacked, did it get damaged?
"
Thanks to of all places, aljazeera, I submit that this is the van in question, one in which someone planted a bomb back in June."
There is no picture of the van in question on the Al Jazeera article. So who knows what it looks like. But the story did say.."
A bomb exploded in an ambulance in the Lebanese town of Kfar Kila on Tuesday, according to Hizb Allah officials.."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7103CA73-DE55-4FC6-80D0-FEBE406ABC80.htmOh and how convenient, they get to imply that this is all a hezzbollah plot. Of course this also means that the red cross would have to have been a willing accomplice. (uh-huh...)
But look at the roof...
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/26/redcross_wideweb__470x352,0.jpgHmm, the story from AL Jezzera said that the bomb was IN the ambulence in question. But that roof is obvioulsy
concaved. In other words whatever hit it came from
ABOVE.
And who would put a bomb on the roof anyway? Besides that any schmoe could SEE the bomb, it also wouldn't do nearly as much damage as if it was under or inside. And the AL Jazeera article did say the bomb had been
INSIDE the ambulence.
Whatever hit that roof was
NOT INSIDE .
Of course it only gets worse from there.
This guy says that the rest of the damage isn't consistent.
The rust on the rest of the shrapnel holes for instance.
But am I only one who ever owned a car while living near a beach? Warm salty ocean air..pretty good at creating rust.
And how do we even know that the other holes weren't there before the missle hit? IN FACT, how do we know that the red cross didn't do what a lot of people do and cover already existing rust with paint? So the damage from the missle only uncovered rust that was already there.
No conspiracy is needed. Just some common sense. Something this writer and anyone who beleived his crap obviously lacked when reading this.
and speaking of stupidity. The writer says "
The image being shopped around with the story by the MSM is of this van. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187
That's his link. Problem is THERE IS NO IMAGE from that link. In fact, it's the same link he keeps misquoting from (as i showed above)
So how can we compare a non-existent image to the pic he shows us from Indy media?
Was this guy just stupid? Or did he know his audience wouldn't check up on what he said? That all he had to do was IMPLY a contradiction and his target audience would take his word at face value?
In any case, since I just happen to have been TRAINED to take forensic photographs in the Navy of things like this, I also happen to know that color photographs from a distance are crap when it comes to assesing what damage there is and how it occured. You're supposed to do B/W and high contrast. The pic he uses in no way undermines the story the way he says it does.
Not that this matters to this guy who then goes ot show us a blow up of the inside of the van.
Of course the problem is that only is this pic highly pixelated thus obsuring detail BUT the angle is crappy for the purpose of seeing any damage inside the van.. All the inside we can see would have been right where the passengers would have been. Of course those areas didn't get damaged much. There were human bodies to take the damage instead.
And of course, the lies don't stop there. He then tries to make it out that the injury reports were inconsistent. Since this is already getting soooo long, i will let others look for themselves. I did and no, the injuries aren't that inconsistent from strory to story, nor are the other details. Especially when you consider that:
1. These people were already injured BEFORE the ambulence was hit by the missle.
and 2. Newspaper writers often get different details when writing the same story. Again, it's not a conspiracy. Each is trying to make this story thier own (and avoid charges of plagerism)
But i will add that when the writer said "<a href="">in one story the elderly woman is critical, in another she's unscathed . " Here he was lying again. And rather blatently.
Here the line for the first story... http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187
And here's the second story... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html
The first story is the IPS news article he cites numerouse times (always wrongly).
In the first story it says.."There was an old man on a stretcher in the ambulance who lost his leg from the bomb," Shaulan said. "And a child with us is now in coma. The third person is critically injured."
The third person, presumably the mother, was criticaly injured.
Ok, so what does the second, supposedly contradictory story from the Guardian say?
"...his mother's body was riddled with shrapnel."
Gee, again is it just me or is being "riddled with shrapnel" sound like a pretty critical injury? If the choad who wrote this or any of the idiots who beleived took this at face value were 'riddled with shrapnel" would they call themselves "unscathed "?
Hell, the mother wasn't even unscathed when she first went into the ambulence before the missle hit.
Well there you go. Another right wing pro-slaughter peice of shit propaganda put to rest. And it took was READING the very sources that this choad provided to "prove" his case and a little common sense.
A little advice to cons which I am sure will be ignored.
Don't just blindly accept stuff because it's what you want to hear.
Oh and I apologize for any typos. You know how the longer the post, the more likley mistakes. Still I think I got most of them."
And that ends my post to the freeper in question. Unfortunatly he accused me of "ignoring evidence' and cited examples of hezzbollah supposedly manipulating the news that had absolutely nothing to do with this story. He even went into complete idiot mode and asked why I wasn't debunking the Media on this. (why I would debunk the media on a story that was true is beyond me...again it must be Con Logic
Pity, he isn't always an idiot. Usually he acts as if he has half a brain. But lately he has let his inner freeper out.
Oh and if anyone else wants to look over this and add anythign of thier own. or instance, i admit I haven't seen a lot of missle strikes and this guy claimed that any missle would have destroyed the ambulence entirely. But I don't think that's true. i mean, what if it was a cluster bomb? Anyone who would know, please share.