Mr Lefty,
stop picking on Bolt's impecable sources
And I bet you think humans really did make it to the moon, when really it was all staged in order to make the USSR spend inordinate amounts of money on futile space programs.
Of course, that's what turned public opinion!
I'm quaking now in anticipation of them demonstrating that the alleged deaths of hundreds of civilians from attacks on civilian targets are a hoax, too.
Apparently, "any old boob" can have their own blog as well.
Regardless of whether the analysis from our Zombietime friend turns out to be correct, he has certainly blown a hole in the credibility of the MSM (pun intended). The questions he has asked are fundamental and significant enough that they should have been asked by the real journalists much earlier on.
Have journos moved from being seekers of the truth to merely receivers of information?
I'd like to believe that media organisations encourage their journalists to follow the truth wherever it may lead... but, as this story demonstrates, I doubt it.
Of course, the righties bagging them for their laziness on this one are not exactly calling for reporters to suddenly start vigorously pursuing difficult questions against the interest of the conservative side...
In relation to the biased media coverage, you ask "Why on earth wasn't Israel defending itself?"
Notwithstanding that most of the guilty media ignored or dismissed the Israeli version of events anyway, in the middle of war, Israeli experts probably had more to worry about then cheap PR activity.
That's more of an Arab thing, as we can all now see.
Mr Lefty - what type of bomb do you think could explode above the Ambo and leave such a nice symetrical hole that happens to coincide with where that red dome the other Ambos have still on them intact ( presumably a light is inside of it)
I think the simplest explanation is no one thought any would be that dumb and journos/editors did indeed just get lazy. That's not exactly unprecedented. The old adage about "if symptoms match common cold and cancer it is most likely it is just a cold" comes to mind.
You ARE kidding me right?
The classic thing about lefties is that, when it comes to things military (and many other subjects for that matter), they know sweet FA and, therefore, believe anything they're told if it fits their ridiculous worldview.
You say that you are concerned that there are no 'experts' named in the piece. In many cases, of course, it is correct that disputes over facts or legitimate interpretations of evidence are best left to people who have particular recognised skills in the relevant areas. I'm not at all convinced that this is such a case. This seems like a case where common sense is perfectly capable of coming up with a reasonable analysis of events. What would it add to Z.'s argument to have an expert saying that the ambulance didn't appear to have been struck by a misile because a missile would have destroyed the vehicle. We know that that's the case because we've seen plenty of missile-struck vehicles before (and so, incidentally, have all the reporters and editors.)
I suppose that the place for an expert would be in debunking this story - if it was the case that sometimes missiles really do penetrate neatly and fold back the metal and then vanish without trace in mid-air, that would be something remarkably counter-intuitive and you'd need to have an expert's authority backing it up to give it any credence.
Your other two points - that the author is anonymous and that he is obviously partisan are largely irrelevant in this case. Where those sorts of things are relevant are when the proponent of an argument is asking you to trust him on some point of fact or interpretation. That isn't the case here. All the evidence that Z. uses to make his case is presented in the article as links, etc. It is perfectly possible for any reader to check everything that is claimed to be evidence.
"People on the righty side of the pond . . ."
That's a mixed metaphor.
So... basically as you don't know the identity of the writer, it should be questioned. Fair enough ANONYMOUS lefty..... I will continue ignoring your work.
Interesting analysis, Lefty. To summarise:
a) Media fell for Hezbollah propaganda
b) Media isn't interested in Israel's side of the story
c) Zombietime is anonymous
d) You don't like Andrew Bolt
put the above facts together, and you get: Righties are stupid
Brilliant work. I'm speechless.
You appear to be sharing culpability equally here between -
a bunch of people who were there at the time and broadcast these false claims as true (I'll call them the mainstream media)
a bunch of people who were wrongly accused (that would be the nation of Israel)
and some other guys who had failed to make these false claims (you call them the "righties")
All about equally to blame you say.
I had thought that your post was "stupid", but considering the reservations I set out above I'm downgrading that to "half witted".
Look, we all know that Israel is filled with all manner of compassionate, loving, gentle, peace-loving citizens. Their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank for nearly 40 years has been a model of care and concern and unquestioned humanity as was their 22 year occupation of Lebanon.
To think that people would think them capable of hitting ambulances is, to me, simply beyond belief. All those buildings and homes in Lebanon just fell down on those civilians and kids due to faulty construction. The bridges too and the roads and hospitals and mosques and power stations and gas stations, etc! The building codes must be improved immediately.
It's time the record was set straight and for Israel to finally get the full recognition it so justly deserves: The Most Neighbourly Nation in the World!
Ok Anonymous Leftard,
Let's try out your theory that a missile would do no more than punch a hole in the roof of a soft skinned van.
You get in the front seat of an ambulance and I'll fire a Hellfire missile through the roof at the back.
Let's just see what happens...
I'm a paramedic, and I can tell you if something made a hole like that in the top of my ambulance, they'd be scraping the patient (and me) out with a shovel. As soon as I saw it on TV I thought it was BS.
Good post Mondo Rock | 08.25.06 - 5:30 pm , except instead of ‘merely receivers of information?’ I would say ‘active manipulators of information?'
Lefty....look at the pictures you dropkick
Time to close up shop mate. Your a moron.
The world is just a big frigging mystery to you leftards.
It must be a conspiracy because I dont understand it. Is the war over? Are we there yet?
Hi,
I'm an expert on ambulances hit by air-to-surface missiles and am not aligned with one side in the conflict.
Intelligence sources have long suspected that the Jews have been quietly developing a missile that leaves an almost perfect hole in ambulance roofs and promotes rapid rusting at the point of entry. Once inside, the ordinance doesn't explode but stuns the occupants so their blood can be drank while they're still alive.
I can assure you in no uncertain terms that the ambulance in those photos was indeed hit by a Jewish missile fired from a Jewish Fighter Jet which was piloted by an Elder of Zion who thought there was a baby inside and wanted to drink it's blood.
...And welcome fuckwits from the world of Blair.
Yes, well spotted, I am indeed also anonymous, just as the author of the Zombietime piece is. Bravo! Well done Tim Blair for spotting the apparent irony! You're a genius!
The point, obviously, is that Zombietime's piece is being taken as wholesale evidence of his theory by the aforementioned righty media figures (Blair, Bolt, Malkin etc), without any deeper analysis of his claims. Just like the media outlets they're condemning, they're not bothering to do any research of their own either.
You reckon you can rule out that damage being caused by an airborne weapon, do you, without demonstrating that you have any expertise in the area? You reckon we should credulously accept any claims you make about what's possible and impossible for missiles/bullets to do? Just because you say so?
Sure I'm anonymous, but I'm not asking you to believe that I'm an expert in the forensic analysis of exploded ambulances.
Odd that you could have missed the point so thoroughly, eh?
"The point, obviously, is that Zombietime's piece is being taken as wholesale evidence of his theory by the aforementioned righty media figures (Blair, Bolt, Malkin etc), without any deeper analysis of his claims."
For Christ's sake Lefty, look at the pictures. It's obvious to anyone that this is a hoax - do you really think that "deeper analysis" is required?
I’ve been playing with these guys for four days now “fuckwits from the world of Blair”. Finish Mr.Lefty off will you. I’m starting to feel sorry for the guy
"Sure I'm anonymous, but I'm not asking you to believe that I'm an expert in forensic analysis of exploded ambulances."
I don't believe the Zombietime blogger is, either. He/she is merely highlighting the obvious inconsistencies in the story.
Which part of the ZombieTime post do you refute, if any? After reading the piece, what's your take on the story?
"Obvious" to "anyone", is it? It's SO obvious that no missile or bullets could have caused the damage to that ambulance that it's taken a month for the story to be publicly queried.
But it's "obvious" to "anyone", right.
If you're saying that damage COULD NOT have been caused by an explosion above the van, which is what it certainly looks like to the untrained eye (which APPEARS TO BE ALL OF US), then bloody well demonstrate to me how you've reached that conclusion.
I don't believe you can do so believably if you don't have any expertise in the area. You'd just be guessing, as I would.
"...then bloody well demonstrate to me how you've reached that conclusion..."
The post in itself serves as a more than adequate demonstration.
What sealed it for me? Take a look at the second photograph in the Claim #1 section of the post. The screw/rivet holes and flange around the hole - added to the fact that other Red Cross ambulances sport a dome in this exact spot - would do it.
You're right, Mr Anonymous Lefty. Your expose of Zombietime's expose of the ambulance strike was more thorough and much better composed than Zombietime's expose of the ambulance strike. I'm convinced.
Mr Lefty,
When in a hole, don't keep digging.
If you can come up with a plausible explanation for refuting the evidence, then I will listen.
Currently, your argument is based on:
1. ad hominem criticism (i.e. that he is anonymous and aligned with one side of the conflict). So if he said Bush dodged National Guard duty, would you believe him then?
2. the Israeli's didn't dispute it enough. The most ridiculous counterpoint of all. Perhaps they should take some time out of planning their military operations, or defending the north, to vehemently dispute the veracity of the rusty ambulance with the hole in the top. Boy, would I love you to be chief of Hizbollah. I will concede one thing - Israel's PR and propaganda is hopeless relative to Hizbollah.
3. the media didn't pick it up. Right. Like Adnan Hajj's smoky Beirut Reuters photo.
4. there were no named experts. Right. Like Adnan Hajj's smoky Beirut Reuters photo.
5. it took a month. Diligent collection of information, analysis and piecing it together takes more than a shrill blog entry. Anyway, does that mean we should acquit all defendants if it takes more than a week to collect evidence? How long is the right amount of time? One week? One day? When does the truth use-by date expire?
Recall this all comes after a series of falsified or staged photos, and explicit admission by journalists of intimidation by Hizbollah to ensure their message is put out.
I challenge you to provide some solid evidence to counter that provided by Zombietime. The evidence stands on its merits, regardless of when or who presented it. Self-evident truth or facts do still exist, despite the relativist's view to the contrary.
So Mr Lefty - please explain the perfectly-shaped hole & missing component at the top of the ambulance, the rust, the lack of fire damage, etc. etc.
We are listening.
It didn't take a month. As soon as I saw it I knew it was bullshit. My father even called me from the other side of the world to ask if I'd seen it.
You're in total denial mate. You may as well be closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la la la la".
Remember that these tadpoles (polybloggers?) are from the same side of the pond that denied the evidence of their own eyes, despite the working knowledge of computer fonts that bloggers could reasonably expected to have, to defend the risibly fake TANG memos. (I have no knowledge of anonymous leftie's position on that issue, it is just an example of the Left's abandonment of reason.)
The list of absurdities that lefties willingly swallow (for example, nobody in Palm Beach County intentionally voted for Buchanon) is a varied and entertaining one, otherwise we wouldn't be here laughing. This is no different.
Hm, haven't been here before. But your tone is ridiculous. You sound like you're so desparate NOT to believe what is right in front of your eyes.
Why did it take so long? Maybe people trusted the media not to pull this kind of stunt? I know I never looked closely at the photos. I guess I just stupidly assumed the media would never try to foist something like this on everyone. Comes down to basic human nature - trust, optimism, wanting to believe people are basically nice, honest people, etc.
What did it for me is seeing the flange at the top. The hole for the light/ventilator/whatever. After seeing that anyone would realise the situation was not as it was represented. We just didn't do the legwork, checking it all out, suspecting everyone and everything. Zombie did and you're trying to shoot him down for something - anything - you can think of. But you just make yourself look stupid and unreliable. Anyone can see the flange. It's completely fucking obvious the hole was not from a missile.
So quit with your whining about "right-wing fuckwits". I certainly don't consider myself "right-wing" at all, I just want to know the truth, and what my eyes are telling me, plain and simple, is that Zombie has it this time, and you're just trying to throw any dirt you can find on his work to serve your strange internal agenda of not wanting to hear anything against your personal political preference.
Well that's bullshit, and you should wake up, pal. He's right, you're wrong, and instead of ranting and waving your arms like a fucking kid having a tantrum, maybe you should just take a quiet moment to reflect that hell, maybe you should think twice about some of the things you obviously believe in so strongly. You'll be a better man for it.
Sho
OK, I only know for sure that my sister believes that last one, I am pretty sure, anyways, from what she says. I can't really explore it with her though, since she gets so angry and irrational if I question her on any point of the matter. So I withdraw the last comment re Buchannon.
I DID run the original, dark, poor quality video and low-angle shot of the roof past a mate who is an air force weapons engineer. His call was 'BS' - a staged Hizb'allah propaganda shot.
I commented on this at Leftwrites.
The later vertical shots prove he was correct.
That vehicle was not struck by any air-launched weapon. Wrong angles, wrong damage - no HE has ever gone off inside that softskin.
But continue your delusions - they make me laugh.
MarkL
canberra
Also, try googling CNN's Anderson Cooper Ambulance and Lebanon if you would like a first hand account of Hez staging ambulance footage for the media.
So-called lefties are always screaming about letting them have the information so they can make up their own minds.
So, Mr Lefty, free your mind of the irrelevant left/right obligatory and obfuscatory labelling, LOOK at the info that Zombie has presented, follow all the links, consider the information and the arguments and make up your own damned mind!!
It's called THINKING.
Fisk believes it. It must be crap.
Mr Leftyperson, I think you are right to be sceptical of zombietime's claims. The media has an impeccable record when it comes to matters military. Impeccable:
http://www.americanthinker.com/
a...article_id=5163
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
...w_york_ti.shtml
Ah yes, lets all argue about the poor ambulance and the f***ing press, pity the poor bastards who have died, on both sides...this world has lost the f***ing plot!!!
hmm, actually I have just scanned the blog linked and I fully admit I am not an expert...but I am enough to know a 'missle' doesnt strike a hole like that without exploding? A driver wouldnt survive a missle strikes and ignites, or the occupants of the ambulance...So if the missle isnt present then how could this have happened...MrL, think your barking up the wrong tree on this one no matter what the level of cynsism...
Zombie may be 'anonymous' however Dan Riehl who was credited by Zombie and who first documented this issue a month earlier certainly is not.
So I guess that whole 'anonymity' thing is even less relevant.
Yaaaawwwn.
Oh look, it's a slavering herd of righties who've just discovered my blog because Tim Blair bagged it. Sure, they're wilfully misreading my post, and sure, they're only interested in blundering about shouting at people, but... no, wait, that's about it.
Try reading my post again, free from the "I assume he's trying to disprove the Zombietime story" slant you apparently got from Blair.
Actually, don't bother. I've had influxes of idiot visitors from Blairville before. I know what you're here for, and I'm not really interested in playing that game with you.
Just go back to Blairville. You won't find anything you fervently believe challenged, and you'll have a regular selection of random targets to go and invade. There's a reason you nuts prefer it to the real world.
Why is Lefty so upset about all the visitors coming across from Blair's ? If it weren't for us nobody would read his shit......
" ...And welcome fuckwits from the world of Blair"
That's the rudest greeting I've ever had Mr.leftyville. There's Tim B doing his damnest to get you a few hits and you greet his hittees with this.
That's just rude, left. It's simply rude. If I were Tim B and found out you treated his guests like that you would never receive another plug.
Thanks for nothing.
Uhh, Lefty, when Tim Blair writes anything as half witted, poorly thought out and off the planet barking batshit insane as the drivel you see fit to issue, I will be sure to 'challenge' him.
Why wait though when theres an endless supply of stupidity going begging right here........
If Tim Blair's moronic hordes ever had anything positive to contribute to a discussion, then their sudden swamping of my comment threads might be something I'd appreciate.
But they don't, and it isn't.
You know, I actually think he's GETTING OFF ON THE ATTENTION
I feel so used......
No, no, "Steaming Plateful", I'm just enjoying your scintillating repartee! Please don't go!
OK, I do happen to be an expert on some military matters. Not expert on the effect of munitions on various targets, but enough to get by. Exterior ballistics, shaped charges, HEAT, HESH/HEP, APHE, APFSDS-T etc etc I just don't do the finite-element computer analysis the true experts do.
But any layperson should be able to see that the thing's a hoax. It would take someone peculiarly clueless or hopelessly biassed not to.
Think about it, Anti-tank missiles are to destroy tanks, 60-ton armoured vehicles that can take hits from grenades and other explosives without more than the paintwork being scratched.
Examine unclassified sources, manufacturers brochures etc and it will prove to even you that just the momentum from a Hellfire missile is equivalent to the ambulance running into a brick wall at 80km/h, let alone the many kilos of explosive going off, plus unburnt rocket fuel.
DISCLAIMER : Some of my work is in service with the IDF. I'm not unbiassed myself.
p.s. As the T-shirt says, As a matter of fact, I am a Rocket Scientist.
But it shouldn't take one to look at the rivet holes.
Come on Lefty
Be as hard on Tim Blair as you like but at least give him credit for having an unerring knack for finding the biggest tools all over the Blogosphere.
Such as yourself for example.
"Why didn't, at the very least, Israel announce its reservations?"
Jesus wept, Mr Lefty. How often has Israel (completely fruitlessly) denied some claim made by Palestinians or their allies on the left?
How often have those denials led to lefties abandoning the story?
Why don't you allow comments on your blog, Mike? You keep writing posts I want to comment on, and I can't.
Zoe. Of course it wasn't hit directly by a missile. But how can you rule out that one exploded nearby and above it? Presumably the ventilation device being blown off the hole would not be inconsistent with such an explosion.
But that's just me guessing again, JUST LIKE THE REST OF YOU ARE.
Q.E.D.
Come on Lefty
Be as hard on Tim Blair as you like but at least give him credit for having an unerring knack for finding the biggest tools all over the Blogosphere.
Such as yourself for example.
Simon
Oh, the irony.
"Why don't you allow comments on your blog, Mike? You keep writing posts I want to comment on, and I can't."
Accuracy check needed. I have already reactivated comments on my blog.
Also, relevance check. How does that relate to the point I made?
Also, I would ask fellow righties to stop coming here purely to shit on Mr Lefty.
If you think he's wrong, you'll actually achieve something by pointing out how.
If you just call him names, you'll look like those hysterical leftists we complain about.
Zoe - You do work for the IDF?
Lefty, you bastard (I'm a hypocrite, I know), why did you de-blogroll me?
You're near the top of mine!
You bastard!
Accuracy check needed. I have already reactivated comments on my blog.
You're kidding. When did you do that? Today? I'll put you back on the blogroll.
How often has Israel (completely fruitlessly) denied some claim made by Palestinians or their allies on the left?
How often have those denials led to lefties abandoning the story?
I have no idea. But if Israel had given a plausible denial in clear terms, explaining how and why it could not have caused that damage, it would have made a difference to my attitude to the story, at least.
It's sad that the Blairites didn't actally read my post, which was not actually defending the media's coverage of the incident, and was not disputing the points that were made. Ironically enough, it was simply calling for some calm analysis - ironic given that the whole problem with the story thus far is that people have been believing what they want to believe without bothering to perform basic checks.
Much as Tim Blair's commenters profess to be ballistics experts, I'd be much more persuaded if someone who clearly had some idea what they were talking about weighed in.
why did you de-blogroll me?
I finally got fed up not being able to respond. I probably did it about ten minutes before you apparently re-enabled comments... I will put you back on.
All up, pretty half-hearted, MrLefty. You know this story was a crock as much as we do.
Zoe. Of course it wasn't hit directly by a missile. But how can you rule out that one exploded nearby and above it? Presumably the ventilation device being blown off the hole would not be inconsistent with such an explosion.
If that were the case, then they didn't deliberately attack the ambulance then, did they?
Zoe. Of course it wasn't hit directly by a missile. But how can you rule out that one exploded nearby and above it? Presumably the ventilation device being blown off the hole would not be inconsistent with such an explosion.
If that were the case, then they didn't deliberately attack the ambulance then, did they?
"You're kidding. When did you do that? Today? I'll put you back on the blogroll."
A few days ago. I realised that I looked like something of a hypocrite for complaining that Loewenstein ruthlessly censors his comments.
"I have no idea. But if Israel had given a plausible denial in clear terms, explaining how and why it could not have caused that damage, it would have made a difference to my attitude to the story, at least."
Would you have even heard about it if they had? I don't know if you noticed, but Reuters, AP, APP & co aren't exactly pulling for Israel.
"I finally got fed up not being able to respond."
That's okay. Vengeance is mine.
APP = AFP.
If we are all only guessing whether it was true or not why was it reported on the front page of the world's most influential newspapers as fact?
Hint....because they are looking for anything to make Israel look bad.
If that were the case, then they didn't deliberately attack the ambulance then, did they?
"Deliberately"? Who on earth knows? The people in the ambulance can't know whether they were deliberately attacked; all they know is that something exploded nearby. (Unless they're blatantly lying, of course.) The only other person who'd know would be whoever's responsible for the explosion - and they're not talking.
I never said they did do it deliberately, anyway. Wilful indifference is the most plausible negative inference from the situation. Is anyone (apart from real nutters) suggesting that Israel actually specifically wants to blow up ambulances? I think you'll find the left's concern with Israel was that it was wilfully firing rockets knowing that innocents would be killed (and it did) - not that it actually WANTED innocents to be killed.
You're exaggerating what we were actually complaining about.
James - because they were incompetent. Did you read my post?
Jeez Mike, that was fast!
Lefty
Have you wondered to yourself why neither the reporters who ran the story, or the Red Cross or the Lebanese are defending this crock of shit. I mean they were there. Surely they would know the truth of the matter even without those doctorates and degrees that you keep insisting on.
Even your mates like Armaniac up the page have slunk off. It's just you alone against the Blairite Goth hordes defending the honour of Time and The Guardian.
Just you. All alone.
Wondered about that all ?
Even after digesting the fact he is a pro-israeli it most definitely was a hoax. Eg. You don't need to have a degree in applied maths to work out 2 plus 2. Common sense works.
As to why Israelis didn't have "someone" on the ground to rebut the hoax is a spurious given that its a war zone and particularly unsafe for israelis.
No offence but I have downgraded your article from interesting to merely amusing.
There's one constructive element here. Israel might
be better off without the fortress mentality and get some CSI types on the ground to win the media war.
Though of course Mr Lefty would denounce such analysis as being obviously israeli.
testing...
"Much as Tim Blair's commenters profess to be ballistics experts, I'd be much more persuaded if someone who clearly had some idea what they were talking about weighed in."
I am not a ballistics expert, but spent 20 years as a defence scientist working with the ADF. Eight of those years as the scientific advisor to various Commanders of the 1st Australian Division (Ford, Cosgrove, Molan and Evans). At the mess today (nicely priced Boags lager), I spoke to a Major who is a ballistics expert and a visiting scientist from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation who is also a ballistics expert. We discussed the ambulance event in some detail. Their considered thoughts were not particularly scientific but I am sure they were accurate - the report is crap and neither of them thought it worthwhile to even write a critique on it. Although I did ask.
I really think you should have the grace to wave the white flag on this one. You are mistaken and backing a loser.
Dr Grant Burfield BSc PhD (ex Staff Officer Science HQ 1st Australian Division)
The Media buying the Hezbollah side of the argument just shows the anti-Israel bent of the left side of the aisle.
You'd rather believe terrorists stories rather than a nation defending itself against terrorism.
This is about much more than ambulances and a hole in it's roof.
We know where you stand. It's not a new position for you. And it's despicable.
"the report is crap " - ie the original press report is crap, not Zombietimes analysis.
Incidentally, I will ask my two contacts for some ballistic type words and will publish them here if you are agreeable. However, I suspect they have more important things to do like looking at Pluto as it transitions from a planet to a non-planet rather than waste their time rebutting drivel.
Thankyou Whale Spinor and goodnight Mr Leftard Jew hater
Oh this is fun. One doesn't get to witness a thorough bitch slapping often. And yet, I suspect this is too easy. Mr Lefty has to be one of the Blair regulars. It's parody. Right?
I haven't read Z's rebuttal, but have any of the wingnuts considered it could have been a dud missile, like the many others documented? That would leave a hole, but still leave the ambulance.
PS I really don't care. Hezbollah are fuckers, IDF are fuckers, wingnuts are fuckers, Mr Lefty isn't (but could learn to pick his battles more carefully).
I think you'll find the left's concern with Israel was that it was wilfully firing rockets knowing that innocents would be killed...
How does the left propose that one address an enemy who puts munitions dumps under schools, fires its offensive weapons from the midst of residential neighborhoods, uses ambulances as military transports, does not allow the women, children, elderly and infirm among and behind whom it hides to seek safety and generally operates under a no holds barred rule of engagement?
Does the left suggest that unless we can unequivocally, positively and with absolute certitude ascertain that no civilians will be harmed, we should stand down? If so, we might as well surrender now. Which, I suppose, is precisely what the left would have us do were it in charge.
I simply can not understand the left's affinity for a group of people who would as soon throw them under a speeding bus as spit in their kafir eye. I would call you an unwitting tool of such people, but I think you are, in fact, quite witting.
Just sign me one of the slavering herd...
fatfingers-OK except that the missile (or projectile, whatever) would have certainly at least torn through to the ground. If you look at Zombie's analysis you will see a picture of the ambulance from the side with the door open, but the frame and undercarriage appears to be undamaged. Nothing heavy could have fallen on that ambulance from any height and not gone all the way through.
And, yes, the damage could have been done by shrapnel, but that could have happened anywhere and been done by anyone. Hezbollah's claim that the IDF did this purposely is ludicrous.
Yes, dud missile, that's it! I think someone earlier mentioned something about ballistics but it got too confusing. 'Dud missile' is much neater and needs little elaboration. Yay, mystery solved, and leftism retains its delusion.
While that one's not your own, it's all really about any explanation so long as those damned right wingers are proven wrong. All that counts is that your world view is upheld, eh Mr Lefty?
Dud missle ? How about the dodgy rust ?
Try this quick test - scrap some paint off your car, back to bare metal, then see how long it takes for rust to arrive...
It's patently obvious that ambulance rust is older than a month.
Nice to hear of you Mike, I'm coming over...
Can we get an expert on ambulance explosions in here?
I think you've gotten some very good opinions on this, MrLefty. Too bad you and your cohorts remain clueless and intractable on open evidence. To put it mildly, as you are clearly dumb, bitter, and lazy.
Perhaps you should send Zombie's report to a suitable expert yourself, eh? Did you think of that before posting this stupid write up?
Nope.....as the evidence clearly shows, m'lord.
So many words. So little said. And absolutely nothing achieved except the further reinforcement of hatred, bias, and deliberate narrow-mindedness.
Sad really!
Mr Lefty,
You have not responded directly to my dissection of your argument (at http://www.haloscan.com/comments...116435/#211194)
I did read your case and judged it on its merits (or lack of), without being concerned about whether you are anonymous or not. I also did not resort to ad hominen attacks.
It's only fair that you to respond to my posting.
I are still waiting.
Corrections:
ad hominen -> ad hominem
I are still waiting -> I am still waiting
Lefty,
you don't need to be a ballistics expert to know
a) large fast things don't punch nice little holes in sheet metal without surrounding damage
b) how to look at any of the past images where Israel *has* targeted vehicles (in militants in Gaza) and the result has been a whole lot messier.
If you can come up with a plausible explanation for refuting the evidence, then I will listen.
Guess what, Angela. I wasn't spreading the story, I'm not defending the original reports, I was simply raising some questions.
Currently, your argument is based on:
This is the problem. I wasn't really putting an argument in my post, and so far as there was an argument it was merely "it would be good to see some of the original media proponents of the story either write a defence or concede - after getting some expert opinion in".
You Blairites completely missed the point.
1. ad hominem criticism (i.e. that he is anonymous and aligned with one side of the conflict). So if he said Bush dodged National Guard duty, would you believe him then?
Not without sources, no.
2. the Israeli's didn't dispute it enough. The most ridiculous counterpoint of all. Perhaps they should take some time out of planning their military operations, or defending the north, to vehemently dispute the veracity of the rusty ambulance with the hole in the top. Boy, would I love you to be chief of Hizbollah. I will concede one thing - Israel's PR and propaganda is hopeless relative to Hizbollah.
According to you Blairites, it's so OBVIOUS that the story was a hoax, that you don't even need to ask an expert. Nevertheless, according to Zombietime, Israel pulled out of the war largely because of the story - without bothering to try to refute it. If it was so obviously a fraud, why didn't they?
3. the media didn't pick it up. Right. Like Adnan Hajj's smoky Beirut Reuters photo.
That wasn't a point, it was an observation.
4. there were no named experts. Right. Like Adnan Hajj's smoky Beirut Reuters photo.
I don't need an expert to show me the two photos and see that one is doctored.
I DO need an expert to rule out that the damage to the ambulance could not have been caused by an Israeli attack. And apparently so does pretty much everyone who believed the story in the first place. Which appears to be a lot of people.
5. it took a month. Diligent collection of information, analysis and piecing it together takes more than a shrill blog entry. Anyway, does that mean we should acquit all defendants if it takes more than a week to collect evidence? How long is the right amount of time? One week? One day? When does the truth use-by date expire?
Yawn. You didn't read my post very closely. You assume that I'm defending the original stories, where I'm clearly not. All I'm doing is saying - this was fairly convincing, but I want to hear the other side's response before condemning the whole thing as a hoax simply based on a couple of righty bloggers' opinions about what can and can't cause that damage to an ambulance.
Recall this all comes after a series of falsified or staged photos, and explicit admission by journalists of intimidation by Hizbollah to ensure their message is put
Recall this all comes after a series of falsified or staged photos, and explicit admission by journalists of intimidation by Hizbollah to ensure their message is put out.
I do indeed. I also recall this coming after Israel bombed civilian areas.* So it's not implausible.
* And no, batwing monkeys, this does not mean I support Hezbollah. They're much worse, obviously, and you'd know of my contempt for them if you'd read more than one post Tim Blair linked to.
I challenge you to provide some solid evidence to counter that provided by Zombietime. The evidence stands on its merits, regardless of when or who presented it. Self-evident truth or facts do still exist, despite the relativist's view to the contrary.
I'm not providing solid evidence, because I was just writing a blog post commenting on the evidence thus far presented. I do not represent the media organisations who've been shown up here, and if you read my post you'll see I condemn them fairly explicitly.
So Mr Lefty - please explain the perfectly-shaped hole & missing component at the top of the ambulance, the rust, the lack of fire damage, etc. etc.
I AM NOT A FORENSIC BALLISTICS EXPERT. I'm not putting myself out as one. I'm not seeking to explain the damage. I put a possible theory out there which would seem to explain those things, but that's it. I'll be perfectly content to hear why that theory is impossible, but I haven't heard it yet.
We are listening.
Sadly, no, you're not.
Oh, and I foolishly commented three times on the site of Blair last night. I will not be returning to see the responses, since there's absolutely no point having a one-on-a-hundred slanging match with the sort of dribbling arrogant righties who take Tim Blair seriously.
OK,if you won't go to Tim's place, I'll repeat my reply here. You did ask for one.
Because of your commenting system which doesn't allow too many links, it's a multi-parter.
Federation of American Scientists Data on the Hellfire Missile
Human Rights Watch report on quantities and types of air-to-ground missiles supplied to Israel.
The difficulty is in finding sources that a) know anything about military hardware and b) are left of centre.
I think it can be taken as read that the IDF didn’t drop a bomb heavier than the ambulance itself? One that leaves a crater 10m wide? But perhaps I have to state the obvious. That we were looking at the smallest guided weapon in the Israeli inventory, one habitually used to take out small targets.
This is what a 2000lb laser guided bomb does. Hopefully you can agree that an ambulance with one of those through the roof would look distinctly second-hand.
OK, so let’s have a look at what a somewhat smaller missile than a Hellfire (which after all, weighs 100lb) does to a tank. One weighing about 60 lb. This weapon attacks from the top, so would be quite similar (though of less effect) than any IDF missile hitting the same target. The Javelin, a weapon so light it is “man-portable”.
Have a look at the effect on a 40-ton tank, one with sides several inches thick, not a few millimetres. Now agreed, the tank itself had a lot of explosives and fuel on board. Nonetheless, look at the size of the initial explosion before the tank ... evaporates.
Ambulances have things like oxygen cylinders on board, plus stuff called “petrol” or “gasoline” that you might have heard of. Things which in combination make very good bombs in their own right.
None of this takes an expert to know. None of it is classified.
Now my qualifications are available on request, but I’ve been in the business of military software, simulations, weapons effectiveness modelling, logistics etc etc for about 25 years. But it wouldn’t matter if I hadn’t, anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of Google and the inclination to actually research the area should pick this up in 20 minutes at the outside.
Common sense should tell you that if a few grams of explosive in a grenade can wreck a car, then 1000 times more should have at least as great an effect. It would not leave a nice neat circular hole. With a flange. And rivet holes.
"a one-on-a-hundred slanging match with the sort of dribbling arrogant righties who take Tim Blair seriously."
That is a bit presumptively harsh don't you think?
Left..Right...Left...Right...
Two identical legs, each one endlessly trying to get in front of the other one.
Yawn!
Okay, you might not all have a problem with drool. I take it back.
Zoe - you're missing the point. I agree the photos show that obviously a missile didn't explode in the car. I was asking whether it was possible a missile could have exploded above the ambulance, hence their believing they'd been hit and seeing fire and smoke and it being consistent with the damage. (I'm surprised by all this "oh, how could it have blown such a neat hole" drivel - the zombietime article points out that the whole is a pre-existing one from the ventilation system, so I'd have thought it wouldn't be that difficult for an external explosion to loosen it or blow it off.)
Did you read my update?
If you can come up with a plausible explanation for refuting the evidence, then I will listen.
Mr Lefty isn't it innocent until proven Guilty?! What you are saying above is that Israel is Guilty until they can prove their innocence on this.
Because the accusation is directed at Israel for firing a rocket at a red cross van, then we have to take the stance that they are innocent until it can be proven that it really was an Israelis rocket that hit it.
Given that, there is obviously not enough evidence to prove that it was a real rocket attack so that means we have to assume that it wasn't a real attack until it can be proven to be real.
The onus is not on the accused to prove their innocence.
you would think that if it really was a read cross van, the red cross or even the UN would have made a public statement of condemn,nation by now. The fact that they haven't proves that they don't think that it is real.
But in all honesty, there has been a wave of opinion in the west that have wanted to paint Israel as the evil side in all of this & it has allowed for hoaxes like this to flourish.
There has been quite a few false propaganda stories & pictures come out of the media during this war that has tried to show Israel deliberately attaching civilians.
P.S - talk about a flood of right wing bloggers!!!! MY GOD!!!! They are a ferocious rabid group aren't they!!!
Most of them aren't actually "bloggers". They're merely Blair commenters.
You're right of course about "innocent until proven guilty". Thus I certainly do not accept that it's been proven that Israel caused the damage to that ambulance. I also don't accept that it's been disproven. Frankly, the jury's still out, which is why I called for some actual evidence to be cited.
See, this is why we should be cautious about stem-cell research.
Here are perfect examples of a human-Tim Blair hybrid. Mostly normal, but with an exact clone of Tim's brain.
Lefty
How is shifting the goalposts going ?
I don't know what is more pathetic - your original silly post or your vigorous attempts to move your argument with each comment and update.
No, I'm trying to move you towards comprehending my original post, since you appear to have wilfully misunderstood it.
Ahh, so anyone who disagrees with you either "missed the point" or "didn't read the post clpsely enough".
Got it.
Game, set and match Mr. Lefty.
Mike is correct; the Blair club groupies have shown their inability to read a post and comment fairly on it.
They just come here and sprout misdirected abuse at something they imagine you have written.
It has been enlightening to read this thread.
In years to come, when some of them grow up and read this from an archive, they will surely cringe at their stupidity.
There are some from the right who have made rational comments here, the others would do themselves a favour to follow their lead, if they feel the need to continue the 'group think' they show at Tim Blair.
If they think their comments show a sense of humour, I am happy to have an expert comedian examine this thread for any signs of rust that could prove them funny.
Good update, it's a shame various ppl just wanted to slot you into their various prejudiced pigeon holes without bothering to read what you actually wrote, which was fairly nuanced.
Ahh, so anyone who disagrees with you either "missed the point" or "didn't read the post clpsely enough".
No, but anyone who thinks I was an apologist for Hezbollah or was putting myself forward as an expert on explosives or that I was condemning Israel or that I was saying that people shouldn't argue things anonymously on the internet... "missed the point" and "didn't read the post closely enough".
If you want to disagree with me that disproving the story comprehensively will require an expert ruling out that any Israeli ordnance could have caused the damage, then fine. But that's really the only "argument" from my post - the rest of the responses appear to be wilful misreading of what I actually said, because the righties want to believe that I'm defending the original story, because they have some frustration against those who told it that they'd like to vent.
noone is wilfully misunderstanding you lefty.
You picked up the claim that the IDF had targeted an ambulance for a missile attack.
It is quite clear that the ambulance has not been attacked by a missile.
You now say that *maybe* a missile went off close to the ambulance
even that seems implausible given the lack of damage to the interior of the ambulance.
You will note also that that was not the original charge that led to the war crime accusation. The story was, you will recall, that the IDF deliberately fired a missile at the ambulance, that the missile entered through the centre of the red cross (thereby proving the targeting intention) and seriously injured patients inside the ambulance.
It now looks like there was no missile, the hole was for the ventilator, which is in the same place on all that model of ambulance, and there is no interior damage to the ambulance consistent with any kind of explosion, or entry of any munition - which would be travelling quite quickly and would go through the floor of any soft skinned vehicle. Hell even a large rock capable of punching a hole in the top of a van would have bent the chassis on the way through.
is it beyond the realm of possibility that hezbollah could have staged this?
sometimes the simplest explanation can be true - that this looks and feels like a propaganda stunt.
Why do you feel that hezbollah wouldnt try and use the media to attack their enemy? I certainly would in their shoes.
and if you want to be dull and pedantic (i am sure that you will).
You are the one who selected your discourse. You deliberately drew attention to and sought to question the analysis offered by zombie.
You analysis took two main parts:
a zombie is anonymous therefore is credentials cannot be tested (ironic surely under the circumstances?)and consequently his analysis must be discounted
b no authority figures questioned the news story (an appeal to authority, how delicious)
When even you couldnt dispute the apparent lack of an explosion, you substituted a third strand - the new theory of the near miss - a completely unsubstantiated theory with no documentation whatsoever.
Through the application of logic your position cannot be merely that of a disinterested observer.
Maybe you really are just another member of the "fake but accurate" camp?
You picked up the claim that the IDF had targeted an ambulance for a missile attack.
No he didn't. Blair really whips up the selective blindness and confabulation in his flock, doesn't he? (Either that, or recruits it.)
More textbook cases of Internet Squadristi.
Take heart, Mr Lefty. The average Joe Bloggs wouldn't take these guys seriously.
Tick.. Tick.. Times up leftard.
Your still a moron.
Dare I say it, the righties know Zombie is correct due to his 'TRUTHINESS'.....
hey bruce, my second comment addresses your point.
As any student of modern literature theory would tell you - your choice of discourse frames and reveals your preconceptions.
Lefty chose to expend considerable effort to be sceptical about a skeptic.
How would you describe his attitude to the original story given that information?
Its called logic.
Now if zombie had simply said I don't believe the story. Then you may have had a point, it would merely be an opinion with no evidential data.
But zombie provides you with exhaustive links and the opportunity to make your own mind up.
Have you followed the links?
Does it look like a plausible explanation?
Does the explanation sound more plausible than the missile attack story?
Go on, be brave do your own thinking.
Tick.. Tick.. Times up leftard.
Your still a moron.
And why should Lefty have a deadline to defend an argument he never made? More selective blindness.
This is what qualifies for informed debate over at Blair's blog I gather?
Its called logic.
You really need to brush up on your logic "deity." The form of an argument can have logical validity and still be wrong if the premise(s) are incorrect.
Your premise is a straw man, buttressed with speculation and contradicted by evidence (ie what Lefty explicitly wrote.) Your conclusion is incorrect.
Deity said
"Have you followed the links?
Does it look like a plausible explanation?
Does the explanation sound more plausible than the missile attack story?"
It 'feels' like a plausible explanation does it Deity?
Irrefutable facts Deity or 'Truthiness'?
(I still love that word it so describes the Blairits!)
"And why should Lefty have a deadline to defend an argument he never made? More selective blindness."
Bruce,
Of course I meant to say, "You're still a moron."
There, that fixes the only error I could see.
There, that fixes the only error I could see.
I take it you are reasoning impared along the lines of confabulation, hence you can't see the glaringly obvious mistake you have made in lieu of the imaginary version of what Lefty said, that occupies your mind.
Mr L
"Zoe - you're missing the point. I agree the photos show that obviously a missile didn't explode in the car."
COMMENT: Good, some progress.
"I was asking whether it was possible a missile could have exploded above the ambulance, hence their believing they'd been hit and seeing fire and smoke and it being consistent with the damage. (I'm surprised by all this "oh, how could it have blown such a neat hole" drivel - the zombietime article points out that the whole is a pre-existing one from the ventilation system, so I'd have thought it wouldn't be that difficult for an external explosion to loosen it or blow it off.)"
Comment: No, the fragmentation damage from even a small, light weapon such as TOW would be much more extensive than shown, and there would be a 'rippling' effect on the flat roof panel which is absent here. A dedicated top attack munition (a hyper-velocity slug former) would evaporate the vehicle.
Interestingly, a militarily clueless friend who is a dedicated petrol head reckons that the damage is consistent with the ambulance being rolled.
I suspect the damage is from a MVA with additional vandalising of the vehicle to make it look worse, prior to posing the shot. Your basic Goebbels style propaganda shot - and the MSM did a hook, line and sinker deal on it. How pathetic.
MarkL
canberra
Applying common sense to Mr Lefty's alternative hypothesis, a near miss that blew off the ventilator, plus some earlier bullet holes that were rusty
1) The rusty holes and dents don't LOOK like bullet holes, mostly wrong shape, didn't penetrate the roof.
2) They are all on the roof, none on the sides. If it had been shot from the air, we would have heard about it, and some of the bullets would have hit the sides anyway
3) There's rust around the large hole, if that had been done 23 July, there would be no rust.
4) The second ambulance, which we see only from the side, apparently had a large hole in the roof, and from the footage, it was in the same place as the hole in the first ambulance, so there must have been TWO near misses which blew the ventilators off BOTH ambulances.
5) Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that Mr Green Helmet, in a white helmet and red overalls, helping the "wounded" ambulance drivers into hospital?
Craigy:
It's "spouting" not "sprouting".
Two conflicting Mr Left quotes:
"The identity of the person doing the critque are completely irrelevant.'
"I'm a little concerned....has no author."
What's going on in that skull lefty? Why would you be concerned about the identity of Zombietime? Are your positions and morals really that malleable? Are you prepared to stand behind your own principles that you have enshrined in writing for all to see? Since you have the morals of the left I would bet my house that you leave the first statement posted on the web to daily prove your hypocrisy.
Hahahahaha
Time to close up shop mate. Your (sic) a moron. The world is just a big frigging mystery to you leftards.
As spelling seems to be for you, buddy.
OK, I do happen to be an expert on some military matters… DISCLAIMER : Some of my work is in service with the IDF. I'm not unbiassed myself.
Zoe E Brain BSc MInfoTech(Dist
Why is it that many of Blair’s brethren insist on posting their credentials? A quick Google for this person turns only frequent self-assertions from this person that he/she is a transgendered rocket scientist; there’s no corroboration available on this. I’m reminded of the monosyllabic PhD in English who also frequented Blair’s threads…
I've spent a half-hour reading Mr Lefty's post, going through Zombietime's excellent deconstruction and its links, then re-reading Mr Lefty's post. I haven't been following the ambulance story previously so I came to it 'fresh', as it were.
Both Mr Lefty and Zombietime raise pertinent points: the mainstream media covering this story has been at best under-resourced, at worst lazy and biased. Sadly, the way media outlets function mean that there's never the time or resources available for full and frank investigations of events like this. Bloggers have filled these logistic gaps to some extent, however it pays to remember that not all bloggers are the most reliable or objective exponents of research and investigation (not that this is true of Zombietime's work which is, from what I can see, quite thorough).
You made these points well, Mr Lefty, however where you went wrong was to slur Tim "any old boob" Blair. Timbo is a good journalist but we know from experience that he's quite vain and your remark was just too much for him. Doubtless he feels avenged after deliberately misrepresenting your post and unleashing the Black Hundreds here - all for petty reasons. As Zoe Brain the transgendered rocket scientist might say, 'it's hardly rocket science'.
I was asking whether it was possible a missile could have exploded above the ambulance
This Mr AbominalLefty creature has unwittingly discovered Morbo's plot. My mighty race has been supplying the Jooos with missiles that are set explode precisely 50 metres above ambulances and scatter them with dinner plate size pieces of schrapnel.
Tremble with fear, puny earthlings! Once we have put holes in all your ambulances, my race will destroy you all!
Briged wrote:
Why is it that many of Blair’s brethren insist on posting their credentials?Good question.
It's because of this, and pardon if I again restate the obvious:
Like I said, I'm not a forensic ballistics expert....If one is giving expert testimony, it's usual to give one's qualifications, so the reliability can be assessed.
...
I'm a little concerned that this purported "debunking"
(a) refers to no named expert sources in its analysis of the damage to the ambulance...
...
Note that I haven't yet seen a response to the story from any other forensic experts. (I say "other", although as noted above, Zombietime's analysis doesn't name any experts on which it relies in the first place.)
As for the rest - see my page at the Computer Science Department of the ANU. The one with the picture of me and the ground model of FedSat.
And while you're at it, have a look at my blog, and images of it taken over the years via the Wayback machine.
Or you could have a look at a cached version of "It's all systems go as FedSat counts down", an article in the Age. (Available here).
Or cached versions of the Co-Operative Research Centre for Satellite Systems website, listing the FedSat team.
Or even that old group blog "The Command Post", yes, some of my articles are in the US library of Congress Minerva database for goodness sake.
Hopefully that gives you about as much "corroboration" as you desire.
Now I would have liked to have kept my Transsexual and Intersexed medical history secret, tried to live some sort of normal life, but I've left too many footprints in the sands of time, or at least the Internet, to go "stealth". To hide, as most of us do.
I'm not ashamed of it, but embarresed, heck yes!
Most people don't consider it relevant, though some use it as an argument to discredit me. To quote something I read recently, I guess it shows "exactly how hateful - and how fundamentally stupid - some Internet people can be.", doesn't it Briged?
Zoe, you're obviously an educated person and quite skilled in your profession, which seems, from the links provided, to be in software development and satellite technology - and not in military ballistics or rocket science. So, no corroboration as yet, however you may choose to enlighten us with more links, if you wish.
And frankly, I couldn't care less about your gender history - it was merely the first thing that I saw after Googling your name. It is not relevant and I shan't mention it again.
Bridgit Gread:
Some might even believe that.
"As spelling seems to be for you, buddy."
Bridgit,
Ya got me.
Jesus, is that all you've got? Lefty is swinging here.
Though my later reply to Bruce shows that you only read the first few posts before launching your polysyllabic attack. And that makes you a leftard moron too.
Forgive me for not taking note of whatever else you wrote, Tom (not your real name). When I see someone begin their contribution with "your a moron", I tend to switch off.
And I don't think Lefty is 'swinging', just because a tribe of PC-bound vipers turns up on his doorstep to either abuse him or to tell us the content of their CVs in the hope that we'll supplicate. Lefty's post was not scathingly dismissive or even significantly critical of Zombietime's analysis, regardless of what Blair claims - the basis of your anger is a furphy.
It is difficult to fault the Zombietime analysis.
Whilst may be possible that, rather than being struck by a missile, the ambulances were sprayed with gunfire from a helicopter or, as MrLefty fancifully suggests, Israeli missiles may have blown up in the air (after hitting what?) above the ambulances, it is highly unlikely - and also means the supposed "Red Cross Workers" were nonetheless lying.
The fact that this nonsense was swallowed by the MSM and slavishly reported as fact is a massive indictment on their rigour and impartiality.
One wonders why media organisations paid to have correspondents on the ground in Lebanon at all, when they could have simply published Hezbollah press releases and produced the same outcome.
MrL, after reading your blog entry and the subsequent update, and all of your comments following, I'm afraid I'm still not entirely clear....what exactly is your position on this?
In your opinion, was the ambulance bombing a hoax or not?
Or are you hedging your bets until you get word from your so-called "Ambulance Explosions Expert"?
Bravo, Tom, you've finally got it! In the end you actually read my post! Well done.
Yes, I am indeed hedging my bets. The Zombietime analysis was indeed interesting, and I didn't seek to refute it. I simply asked for confirmation of his assertions about what is and isn't possible.
Bridgit Gread:
Some might even believe that.
For the record... I do.
Look, it's not as if it's exactly usual is it? :) "Transsexual Rocket Scientist" isn't exactly a phrase that trips across the tongue, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It helps to keep both a sense of humour, and a sense of proportion.
As regards Military Ballistics and Rocket Science, well, by courtesy, satellite constructors tend to be regarded as the latter, as we have some input as regards structure, vibration loading etc. For the former, I'd have to send a CV so you can check out the references, but I'll ask you to trust me on this one.
Besides which, things like modelling the flight performance of RIM-7M NATO SeaSparrow Missile Systems (to take an example off the top of my head) are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
As for MrLefty's points:
Hopefully we can agree that the ambulance is question was not "Hit by an Israeli Missile through the Red Cross", which was the whole crux (pun deliberate) of the story.
The damage I saw may have been due to a grenade going off a few metres away (nothing larger, or the damage would have been more extensive), or the thing just rolling on a stony surface. Or a couple of guys with hammers. I don't know, and there's no evidence for any of these hypotheses. I'm also not an expert on hammers, rolling cars, or even fragmentation grenades, just missiles.
The absence of Israeli denial can be explained by three factors:
1. They did, and it wasn't publicised, as the denial occured after they had looked at the facts, not as a matter of reflex. (Are the pictures accurate? Is that the ambulance in question? Where any IDF helos in the area? When did it happen? Etc Etc.) Tragic accidents happen in war, and sometimes some war crimes too. Better to make sure of the facts first. Initial reports are often inaccurate.
2. The whole situation is as ludicrous as the conspiracy theory that it was US launched cruise missiles that hit the WTC and Pentagon - a theory you'll still see on some sites. Not worth making a fuss about.
3. Those who wish to believe will believe despite all facts and arguments, just as what, 30% of UK muslims believe the Joos were responsible for 9/11.
A better question would be how come the Red Cross started this whole thing with a press release, and how come they haven't retracted the initial story - of a deliberate bombing of an ambulance, with the weapon targetted at the Red Cross symbol? How come MSM haven't publicised the Hoax?
"Why is it that many of Blair’s brethren insist on posting their credentials?"
I trust Zoe has answered this question to your satisfaction, Bridgit?
Zoe - can you rule out that the damage could have been caused by a missile hitting a building or something a particular distance above (or above and to one side of) the ambulance?
MrL, if an Israeli missile hit a nearby building and rained shrapnel and debris on the ambulance(s), how would that have punctured the huge hole in the roof? For that matter, how would that have sheared off the old guy's leg and thrown the paramedic into the air for fifteen, or whatever, feet?
There is a difference between sensible scepticism about what one reads on the net and out-and-out credulity. It is very difficult to see this affair as anything other than a Hezbollah hoax, facilitated by the Red Cross no less.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I'm suggesting that perhaps something blew up above and close enough to the ambulance to cause the damage in those photographs. Is that possible or not? I'm not suggesting it was caused by shrapnel or debris. I'm suggesting it was caused by the explosion.
I'm simply raising a possibility that I have not yet heard ruled out.
Mr Lefty has chosen to take the path of healthy skeptisism as regards Zombie's work, while acknowledging that a case has been made. In fact he sought comment from any readers with more expertise.
This may be because he doesn't want to jump too hastily to the conclusion that the Red Cross or professional journalists are involved in a hoax, or maybe it just doesn't seem credible to him. The point is, he is certainly entitled to do this. Many of the swarm comments in this thread are ridiculous.
I think Zombie may be on to something here, and I think it is great that bloggers have documented and compiled information that the MSM wouldn't touch, at least in part due to political bias. That said, I found the smug, smart-arsed abuse indulged in by some of the swarm disquieting.
Swarmers, consider this: if a posse of leftists alighted on Tim's site, calling him a moron and generally making a nuisance of themselves, Andrea would have them banned in a matter of minutes. The comments policy there is designed to populate the comments thread with a herd of like-minded posters.
The only reason a lot of the comments stand here (in some cases merely as witness to the idiocy of the commmenter) is that Mr Lefty has a better attitude to free speech.
Zombie: It looks as though it could have happened this way.
Mr L: I see your point, fair enough..but it could have happened this way as well, no proof either way.
Slanging match ensues. Perspective people, remember what we're actually talking about here.
I trust Zoe has answered this question to your satisfaction, Bridgit?
See comment at http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4116435/
#211311 ... I'm not going to repeat myself.
The answer is obvious. Hezbollah launched a rocket from an underground bunker just as the ambulance ran over it. The rocket passed right through the ambulance and went on to blow up a pregnant Israeli goat in a field.
I kid you not!
Bridgit Gread wrote:
"And I don't think Lefty is 'swinging', just because a tribe of PC-bound vipers turns up on his doorstep to either abuse him or to tell us the content of their CVs in the hope that we'll supplicate."
"Why is it that many of Blair’s brethren insist on posting their credentials?"
Probably because Mr Lefty kept making comments like "Much as Tim Blair's commenters profess to be ballistics experts, I'd be much more persuaded if someone who clearly had some idea what they were talking about weighed in."
His original post and following comments all express a desire to hear educated opinions by "experts".
They say "Ask and ye shall receive." Well, Mr Lefty asked....
To then complain about it, Bridgit, would seem a bit silly. Or as you said to someone else earlier - "the basis of your anger is a furphy."
SB wrote:
"Swarmers, consider this: if a posse of leftists alighted on Tim's site, calling him a moron and generally making a nuisance of themselves, Andrea would have them banned in a matter of minutes. The comments policy there is designed to populate the comments thread with a herd of like-minded posters.
The only reason a lot of the comments stand here (in some cases merely as witness to the idiocy of the commmenter) is that Mr Lefty has a better attitude to free speech."
Credit where credit's due - Mr Lefty does have good attitude to free speech.
Having experienced the draconian and biased moderation/censorship/deletion policies of other sites like leftwrites.net, MrL's attitude on this score is exemplary.
PS - But that ambulance still wasn't hit by a missile, and the MSM are still lying, incompetent hacks! ;-)
"I'm not going to repeat myself."
You wouldn't be, if you actually answered the question.
You asked why people were posting their qualifications in their comments here. Zoe replied that the original post called for qualified comment. Commenters hence feel compelled to post their credentials, regardless of whether these meet your requirements or not.
It's pretty straightforward.
The day Mr Lefty had his debit card stolen
Mr Lefty stood in a queue at his local bank, he produced his card as he waited to be served. However he absent-mindedly dropped his card on the floor. The only other customer, who happened to be behind him, picked it up and looked at it - checking the name and signature.
Mr Lefty and Mr Card Thief then went up to the clerks at the same time. Mr Lefty realised his card is missing, and happened to notice the bank clerk serving Mr Card Thief express uncertainty about whether Mr Card Thief is Mr Lefty. So Mr Lefty went over and asked what the matter was.
Bank Clerk:- This fellow doesn't seem to have the right card.
Mr Lefty:- How do you know that?
Bank Clerk:- Well, the signature on the card and Mr Card Thief's signature don't match.
Mr Lefty:- How can you possibly know that? Are you a handwriting EXPERT? I rather doubt it. So how can you feel sure that the handwriting on the card is not the handwriting of Mr Card Thief?
Bank Clerk:- As I said, the handwriting on the card and this withdrawal slip doesn't match up.
At this point Mr Lefty noticed the signature on the card. A little curious, he leaned forward to try to inspect it.
Mr Lefty:- (thinking to himself) Hmmm, the handwriting does seem to resemble mine a great deal...however I am no more of a handwriting EXPERT than this prat of a bank clerk is, so I cannot be certain that I am correct in my assessment. Um...ahh...however shall I preceed? Oh, I know!
Mr Lefty:- I think, Bank Clerk, that you should go and get an expert so that this matter can be sorted out, after all, you are a layman and your assessment that these two examples of handwriting are different must be considered suspect.
Mr Card Thief:- Well, I AM an expert, and I can attest that the bank clerk's opinion is very much off base. So, if you don't mind, Bank Clerk, I would like to make a complete withdrawal and close this account.
Mr Lefty:- He IS an expert, Bank Clerk. Do as he says.
Well, that was in no way enlightening. You went to all the effort of typing out a ridiculous "analogy" that completely missed the point. Too much time on your hands, Kusabi?
Obviously you don't need to call an expert for everything. You don't need to be an "expert" to tell when someone's using your bank card. You don't need to be an "expert" to mock Andrew Bolt for his ridiculous columns.
But you DO need to be an expert if you're claiming that a widely-reported story about an ambulance explosion MUST be a hoax because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been caused by ANY KIND OF ORDNANCE carried by the Israeli military.
How does Joe Bloggs know what weapons the Israeli military has, and what damage they can and can't do? Answer: he doesn't.
That was pathetic, "Kusabi".
Swarmers, consider this: if a posse of leftists alighted on Tim's site, calling him a moron and generally making a nuisance of themselves, Andrea would have them banned in a matter of minutes. The comments policy there is designed to populate the comments thread with a herd of like-minded posters.
The only reason a lot of the comments stand here (in some cases merely as witness to the idiocy of the commmenter) is that Mr Lefty has a better attitude to free speech.
SB, Tim Blair doesn't hail his visitors with the greeting of 'fuckwit'. Lefty does.
Free speech should also be responsible speech.
Tim T
"Welcome fuckwits....." is just part of Mr L's leftist charm, kinda like me saying that "leftists are always and everywhere stupid". Not all leftists are stupid, but enough of them are to make the assertion credible.
Likewise when you are being swarmed by a pre-hyped throng with their grievances hanging out and their righteousness throbbing bright red, addressing them as "fuckwits" is just another little dropping in the eternal battle of bullshit.
However, this: "Free speech should also be responsible speech." is an abomination. This assertion is infinitely worse than calling people fuckwits. Speech is either free or it is not. Once you think you are the right person to decide what is "responsible speech" or that some other person or committee should do so, then free speech is done for.
Each of us is the only person able to decide for ourselves what is "responsible speech".
Tim, seek help. You are showing dangerous tendencies. The statement: Free speech should also be responsible speech is pure leftist wankery. It is the antithesis of free speech. It is the basis of all censorship. It is a truly horrible concept.
SB, fuck off. Hey, it's just part of my charm! :)
I was being incredibly sarcastic in that last post, by the way. As you could tell, I'm sure. But I apologise.
Tim T: SB, fuck off.
Funnily enough, I was going to end with a flourish, and call you a cock-sucking cunt, but I chose to be more responsible.
It's all good! ;)
It's all good!
Yeah, it was a bigger insult to imply you were a leftist. :)
Every Blair visitor who has posted here has revealed themself to be a complete moron who is apparently incapable of reading simple English.
So with this in mind I issue a challenge to all you dimwitted and frightened little Tim Blair wannabe righties:
Can any of you quote even one sentence from either Lefty's original article or follow-up posts where he denies that the ambulance story was a hoax? Alternately, can any of you quote a sentence where he supports the ambulance story as real?
And please - don't show yourselves to be even bigger dullards than you already appear by quoting Lefty's requests to critically analize the hoax argument. Asking someone to critically evaluate a claim is not the same as refuting it.
I doubt that even a single one of you pea-brained idiots can honestly meet this challenge.
Mondo, methinks you "analize" too much.
Mondo Rock:
Can you quote even one sentence where anyone said MrLefty definitively and categorically stated that it was a Hoax?
No, it's all implied.
Like this:
The only conclusion I can reach is that if it was a hoax...
If it was a hoax. I'm a little concerned that this purported "debunking"
For that matter, who are these "Blair visitors" you speak of? You name no names, you merely state that they have "revealed themselves to be complete morons".
Can we gather that you're a Blair visitor then?
Nowhere in the above do I state that you're a complete moron, of course. Wonderful things, implications. They can let you get away with anything, as long as you're cowardly and ignorant enough.
Not that I'm saying explicitly that you're cowardly and ignorant.
In fact, I will say explicitly that I see no evidence that you're either. Just too committed to dielectic and winning some sterile word-game than ascertaining facts which are important to grown-ups.
Back to basics:
Associated Press :Ali Deebe, a Red Cross spokesman in Tyre..... said. "One of the rockets hit right in the middle of the big red cross that was painted on top of the ambulance,"
ITV :ITV reporter Julian Manyon: ...Lebanese ambulance men, shocked and bleeding, brought in as casualties to a hospital in Tyre. They were hurt when Israeli aircraft rocketed two ambulance crews. ... On the face of it, it is difficult to understand just how the Israeli military could possibly have mistaken two clearly marked ambulances for a legitimate military target. ...
ITV host: Well we've seen it there, haven't we, Captain Delall? This can't go on, this indiscriminate slaughter of Lebanese civilians.
...
Julian Manyon: The air attack on two Red Cross ambulances has increased the controversy surrounding the Israeli assault on Lebanon. ... It's noticeable that one burst of fire struck the exact center of the cross on the roof of one of the ambulances. ... Because of the extreme dangers of the roads, journalists have not visited the scene.
Time Magazine: But on Sunday night, the emblem of the Red Cross was not enough to deter an Israeli helicopter gunship from firing missiles into a pair of ambulances loading casualties in the village of Qana" ... "As Shaalan closed the back of the ambulance, however, a missile punched through the roof of the vehicle and exploded inside. "There was a boom, a big fire and I was thrown backwards. I thought I was dead," Shaalan recalls. ..."Then a second missile struck the other ambulance." ..."The father's leg was severed by the exploding missile." ... "There was no immediate comment from the Israeli authorities on why a helicopter gunship had attacked a clearly marked Red Cross ambulance
And so on and so on. Accusations of War Crimes, punishable condignly under International Law.
Obviously False Accusations, made by representatives of a supposedly no
"Implied", Zoe? All that abuse was based on "implied"?
A more accurate word might be "assumed". As in, you all "assumed" that's what I was saying, despite my obviously contemplating that it may well be completely correct, and stating from the outset that it raises questions the media who ran the story need to answer.
So, sorry, Zoe, but no cigar.
Zoe - you mind-numbingly idiotic cretin (note the lack of any implied insult - I'm quite happy to come right out and say it)
Lefty has not implied in the slightestst that he disbelieves the Zombietime analysis . He has only demonstrated caution in accepting it wholesale and expressed concern that there has been no official confirmation of the findings at this time. You will find nothing more in his comments because there is nothing more!!
Your reading of Lefty's analysis as implying support for the 'it's not a hoax' conclusion is nothing more than a reaction to the spin that your lord and master Tim Blair has programmed into your limited brain. This says far more about the extent to which you've abandoned free thought (in preference to having your opinions spoon fed to you) than it does about Lefty's analysis.
Now run on back to groupthink central like a good little girl. You can tell all the other Blairites about how naughty you've been over here at Lefty's site - I'm sure they'll all give you high fives and adoring praises.
Scorecard of the challenge so far:
Lefty: 1
Tim Blair's idiots: 0
And you don't need to be, or call for, an EXPERT when the evidence - the pictoral evidence - is stark and clear that things have not happened as they are supposed to have. Your crying for an expert is just you looking for a way to not use your own brain. You come out with some prize stupidity - How does Joe Bloggs know what weapons the Israeli military has, and what damage they can and can't do? - do you think it even possible that there's a missile or rocket in existence that can strike a vehicle and leave the inside of the vehicle unmarked by fire (as was seen in the pictures) - or blood, supposedly from the man who had his leg severed (blood which was not seen in the pictures)? That left everything inside the ambulance more or less as it was (as was seen in the pictures)? Perhaps you think the weapons used were designed to allow people injured by them to heal their injuries perfectly, at an accelerated rate, and leaves no trace of the wound caused (as was shown in the pictures)?
I wonder, why do you have no skepticism concerning the claims made by the ambulance drivers (who said the inside of the ambulance was an inferno, and also told us a patient lost his leg in the 'attack') and the glaring lack of evidence of this in the pictures on zombie's site? You do not need highly trained experts on munitions to justify a critical attitude towards that. You can feel confident about using your own judgment about that particular matter. I also wonder why, when 'experts' have shown themselves, you have basically ignored them? To protect your credulity, of course!
do you think it even possible that there's a missile or rocket in existence that can strike a vehicle and leave the inside of the vehicle unmarked by fire (as was seen in the pictures)
No. But there might be some that can strike near a vehicle and leave that damage. As I seem to have suggested before.
I agree that at the very least much of the story seems to have been exaggerated.
However, what Zombietime is alleging is more than that: he's alleging a complete hoax. And I'm not going to rule out an innocent explanation before seeing some evidence supporting Zombietime's assertions about explosions on which he basis his suggestion that the entire incident was faked. And, further assertions from people who don't appear to know what they're talking about aside, I haven't seen that.
(You may want to look again at what the bulk of the stories actually said, rather than what one or two of the more extreme ones claimed. And, as I pointed out, the later stories showed signs of following a chinese-whispers like development trail.)
No. But there might be some that can strike near a vehicle and leave that damage.
Umm...what? There might be some weapons that can 'strike near a vehicle' and leave what is supposedly an 'entry wound' in the ambulance, for want of a better term? Which other ways do you imagine these weapons might be able to defy the laws of physics?
further assertions from people who don't appear to know what they're talking about aside
You ask for experts, you hear from people who explain their qualifications with regards to their weapons expertise, and you write them off as 'people who don't appear to know what they're talking about'. See, you feel yourself competent to judge the validity of their comments, despite the fact that they're the experts you requested (and you're not), but you avoid like the plague perusing the PICTURES and making your own mind up about the evidence contained therein.
I wasn't wrong when I referred to you as credulous, was I?
1. The only person who's credibly listed (ie such that we could look them up) her qualifications here is Zoe Brain. Zoe (a) hasn't yet ruled out the possibility I raised and (b) hasn't claimed to be aware of everything the IDF is or could be using.
2. If by "entry wound" you mean the hole where a ventilation device has been blown off... well, that doesn't require the actual missile to penetrate, surely? Surely a blast could blow the thing off?
Finally, I am not going to be drawn any further into a debate about what is and isn't a possible cause of the damage to that ambulance. I do not profess expertise in the area. I never did.
I simply asked for corroboration. If you want to have a debate over explosions, go find a military munitions expert and argue with them. Don't do it with me.
1. I was referring to the threads on Tim Blair's site which I know you have participated in. People besides Zoe Brain have answered your call...pray tell us what you think (Please make it more detailed than 'HURRRR those people don't seem to know what they're talking about')
2. {Surely a blast could blow the thing off?} Surely a blast powerful enough to blow the ventilation device off would leave a hell of a lot more damage to the roof than was seen in the pictures you refuse to look at and take account of.
I do not profess expertise in the area.
But you would have us believe you're expert enough to dismiss the testimony of people who know more about weapons than you say you do.
The only reason a lot of the comments stand here (in some cases merely as witness to the idiocy of the commmenter) is that Mr Lefty has a better attitude to free speech.
Truly, some of the best debates you can have are when you sit back and let your opponent do all the talking. I'm surprised people are reguritating Blair's "anonymity hypocrisy charge" when it is so obviously a fallacious argument.
Mr L criticised the citation of an anonymous source, not that the source chose to make themselves anonymous.
It's seeming more and more likely that these people aren't seriously trying to debate Mr L, but rather pester him into silence. With stupidity on display as it has been though, I don't think the Internet Squadristi are going to be able to pull it off.
Is it just me, or has the right side of the local blogosphere been flailing a bit more than usual of late?
If the chief criticism Mr Lefty makes is that zombie doesn't post under his real name (much like Mr Lefty himself doesn't), than it's not the right side of the blogosphere that's "flailing", is it, Senor Bruce?
Okay, Kusabi's a troll.
Bruce - "Mr L criticised the citation of an anonymous source, not that the source chose to make themselves anonymous."
Kusabi - "If the chief criticism Mr Lefty makes is that zombie doesn't post under his real name"
Three possibilities present themselves.
1. Kusabi is a troll, and is just wasting our time by being obtuse; or
2. Kusabi can't read; or
3. Kusabi is a complete knuckle-dragging idiot.
I'm going to assume it's #1, though.
Hohohohohoho!! I don't think a wilfully ignorant chappy like you gets to call other people idiots. Idiots would be people who refuse to put forward reasons for why, say, Zombie's assessment that the ambulance hoo-hah is a hoax, go on about how they can't or won't think for themselves, and cannot even manage simple things like looking at pictures. Even Bush can do that. What's your excuse?
Really, who do you think you're kidding? People read these comments and they see me explaining what's in these pictures that you refuse to look at out of obtuseness, and asking you some pretty embarrassing questions - embarrassing in that your failure to answer seems to indicate that you have no basic knowledge of physics. And they see you and your erstwhile supporters coming out with complete rot, name calling and rah-rahing under the impression that you're 'winning' by having your fingers in your ears.
1. Troll.
Mr Lefty: 2
Tim Blair's idiots: 0
Sorry Kusabi - you are arguing an irrelevant point. Lefty has never claimed that the ambulance was hit by a missile, nor that a missilel exploded near the ambulance. Not once. All he has done is ask whether this has been definitively ruled out by an authoritative source.
Lefty has exercised restraint before swallowing the zombietime analysis hook line and sinker. A restraint that you and the rest of the Blair sheep seem to lack.
We seem to have found another fake.
Rob the Palestinians have made an industry out of fake attack reports - Pallywood.
However, the one you have linked to will not win any academy awards.
Lefty:
All the eye witness "accounts" were adamant that missiles had actually hit the ambulances. All the press reports echoed those accounts that the ambulances had been deliberately targeted.
The ambulance driver stated that as he was closing the back door of the ambulance, a missile hit the vehicle causing an explosion, a fire which threw him backwards, and then a missile hit the second ambulance severing the leg of a patient inside.
That testimony is pretty clear and unequivocal. The press reports were so clear they said that the missiles were obviously deliberately targeted because they hit the centre of the red cross.
There is no room for your theory that the weapons exploded in the vicinity. They were categorically direct and deliberate direct hits.
Zombie has analysed all the statements and the photographic evidence which "proved" the attack was deliberate and a war crime.
He has gone through the accounts and the evidence chapter and verse and has made a compelling and convincing case that the whole incident as portrayed is a hoax.
You are now acting like the criminal whose story having been shredded poses another theory. Maybe the reports were exaggerated? The missiles exploded high above the targets sorry ambulances?
The story was made for the purposes of branding the IDF as war criminals because they deliberately attacked civilian ambulances.
After looking at Zombie's analysis any thinking person can see that the media account is a load of bullshit. Anyone who is looking for another explanation for what was put forward wants to believe that the IDF acts like a war criminal. It looks very much like you are suffering from Terry Lane Syndrome, MR Lefty.
Amortiser - you are clearly absolutely convinced that the Zombietime analysis is correct. Bully for you. Throw yourself a party.
Lefty is not absolutely convinced by the Zombietime story. He clearly thinks it is credible, and clearly thinks it raises some serious questions about the quality of our media (he has said so a number of times), but he does not believe it to be definitive in its own right. I agree with him.
Lefty is waiting for something more official than an anonymous blog before he signs on wholesale to the whole 'it's definitely a hoax' thing.
A sensible precaution, one would think, given the apparent glut of fake stories out there. But a precaution that you have ignored because you desperately want Zombietime's analysis to be true.
It is not Lefty who is behaving like Terry Lane - it is quite clearly you Amortiser.
You are desperately assigning opinions to Lefty that he doesn't actually hold so as to bolster your attack. It is a weak and pathetic strawman - your argument is false and you are pushing a thinly disguised agenda.
Mr Lefty: 3
Righties: 0
The more I think about it the more hilarious it is that Amortiser has acused Lefty of behaving like Terry Lane.
Lefty is refusing to accept at face value a blog-based story purporting to reveal some groundbreaking news. He is calling for independant confirmation of the story before he will accept it as true.
Amortiser, on the other hand, is practically falling over himself to believe the story, and yet he/she has the gall to accuse Lefty of behaving like Terry Lane.
What an amazingly stupid comment to make.
Actually Amortiser - I'm taking a mark off the Righties since your comment was so unintelligent.
Mr Lefty: 3
Righties: -1
.
Mr Lefty: 3
Righties: 0
Would that be referring to the number of times either side has made themselves look like an utter fool? Because I think you should revise your figure for Mr Lefty, as it's way higher than 3.
Include the score you racked up for your mindless cheerleading and it'd be 10 at the very least. Hell, make it an official 11, as your idea of what constitutes an 'intelligent comment', or the concept of scepticism, is the exact opposite of what most people understand it to be.
We seem to have found another fake.
Hmmm. Two holes in the vehicle roof, surrounded by rust, that aren't even wide enough to have admitted missiles or even in a circular shape.
I am incompetent to know what to make of this!! I need an expert!!! Perhaps there is an expert out there who knows whether missiles have little robotic arms to push metal back as they pass through so that holes in metal seem more like splits.
[i]"Lefty is not absolutely convinced by the Zombietime story. He clearly thinks it is credible, and clearly thinks it raises some serious questions about the quality of our media (he has said so a number of times), but he does not believe it to be definitive in its own right. I agree with him.- lyrics by Mondo Rock"[/i]
NO doubt Mr L will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he has stated that he in fact agrees with Zombitime's conclusion that the anbulances did not suffer direct misslile hits.
As I see it his argument that it is not necessarily a hoax refers to the source of the misinformation- i.e Chinese whispers versus deliberate misinformation.
Thanks for that Kusabi.
Were you actually trying to say anything substantial or are you happy with your post above?
You fail to refute any of the arguments made by either Lefty or me, and you seem to think that a mere claim by you that Lefty looks like a fool, and that I don't understand what scepticism is, will suffice. Pretty much reflective of your overall abilities I would say - a lot of bluster and hot air, but nothing of substance.
Until you can demonstrate that it is unreasonable of Lefty to hold back his judgement on the veracity of an unsubstantiated blog-based story until there is authorative confirmation, then you have failed in your argument.
Just give up and crawl back to Spleenville.
Next please.
Oh, I've demonstrated Mr Lefty's unreasonableness (and yours too). I've made extremely substantial comments and so has Amortizer. And you have responded with braindead, lowest-common-denominator, content-free bilge. If I was interested in shacking up with you I would follow your advice to 'go back to Spleensville' but alas no.
Blah blah blah - thanks Kusabi for your "extremely substantial" comments.
Shame that they fail entirely to establish anything other than the fact that you can't grasp the concept that not agreeing with something is not the same as disagreeing with it.
Basic stuff I know - but apparently beyond you.
Lefty will wait until the hoax story is confirmed by real experts with real knowledge of what happened. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you and your amateur-hour friends just don't qualify, no matter how much you blather on about how obvious you think it is.
Thanks Applecart - I do try to write as clearly as I can, but to have my work described as lyrical is high praise indeed.
You are too kind!
As for your comment re Lefty's argument that the ambulance story is 'not necessarily a hoax', well, you've actually hit upon the one part of Lefty's position that I won't loudly support.
I believe that there is a level of hypocricy evident in his request that the readers of his blog 'allow the argument to speak for itself' whilst asking readers not to accept the Zombietime analysis merely because it is anonymous.
In my opinion Zombietime's argument is extremely persuasive, regardless of his anonymity. I don't believe it is 100% conclusive, as many of the Spleenvillage idiots want us to uncritically accept, but it is still very strong.
Sorry Lefty - but that's just what I think.
Actually I should be more precise. What I mean to say is that Mr L (so it appears to me) agrees that the ambulances did not suffer direct missile hits.
I'm eagerly waiting for Mondo to grade his own comment as he has done all the others before telling himself to crawl off to Spleenville ...
In my opinion Zombietime's argument is extremely persuasive, regardless of his anonymity. I don't believe it is 100% conclusive, as many of the Spleenvillage idiots want us to uncritically accept, but it is still very strong.
I agree. That's always been my position.
The anonymity point was only ever a corollary of the "what's his expertise for making those assumptions" question - if Zombietime turned out to be an explosives expert with demonstrable such qualifications then I'd have taken his assertions as even more persuasive.
I was never saying you should disbelieve an argument just because the maker of that argument is anonymous. That would of course indeed be bizarrely hypocritical, given my use of a pseudonym and the name of this blog.
Keep waiting TimT . . . perhaps whilst waiting you can ask yourself whether you think that the criticism of Lefty on this issue, delivered so whole-heatedly by the Blair Gestapo, was fair or warranted.
I'm happy to grade your resposne if you'd like, since you seem to be so keen on the process.
Lefty - I do understand where you were coming from, which is why I qualified my comment re the hypocrisy of the anonymous issue as 'a level' of hypocrisy.
I think it's quite reasonable for you to note that, because the source is anonymous, the article should not be uncritically accepted. It's author will undoubtedly have an agenda to push, even though it's not clear at this point whether the author has allowed that agenda to cloud his/her argument.
Nonetheless, of the wild spray of abuse that was directed your way by Blair and his lickspittle minions, this was the one charge that was close to being justified.
The rest of it was just an enormous pile of unintelligent horse shit. How's Amortizer's form, accusing you of being like Terry Lane whilst simultaneously demanding that you accept an anonymous blog as definitive proof of the ambulance hoax!?!
What a goon!
"Tick.. Tick.. Times up leftard.
Your still a moron."
Oh, the irony... The punctuation...
Coming from my literary background (being an expert on fighting imaginary giants that are actually windmills) it's been particularly funny watching Blair's minions go in to battle against an argument that Mr. Lefty never actually made. It would appear that there's a little Don Quixote in every member of the Blairist cult.
Yeah, but Don - what is so disappointing is that it all happened over the weekend while Lefty's regulars were out and about and not paying attention.
We come back on a Monday to find that Blair's abusive minions have conducted their idiotic raid and then buggered off back to Spleenville before we had a chance to argue back.
Now all we get are the dregs, stumbling around like drunken fools not realising that the pack has already moved on and deserted them.
Oh well, maybe I'll catch them next time.
Haloscan dying Saturday morning didn't help, either. It stayed on for Blair's US timezone horde, and then died when people started getting up here.
Mr L, can you clarify exactly what you feel needs tobe confirmed by expert opinion?
#1. Whether or not the ambulances took direct missile hits as described in the news stories.
#2. Whether the damage seen in the photos might have been caused by a explosion in the vicinity.
Perhaps both?
Whether the damage to the ambulances could or could not have been caused by weapons used by the IDF in the recent conflict.
Mondo Rock:
That's a very poor excuse for a rebuttal. I will just reiterate what is the crux of the claims made by those at the scene.
They are adamant that the missiles directly hit the ambulances. So direct that the missiles entered the ambulance at the centre if the red cross on the roof. There was an explosion and a burst of fire inside the vehicle.
Now have a look at the photographs proffered by the claimants as evidence of the "atrocity". There is no evidence to support their claims. Zombie deals with the claims point by point. An ambulance suffering a direct hit from a missile would have been obliterated with no survivors. Now the ICRC has pulled the photo of the ambulance from its site.
All the wishful thinking is coming from those who want to diminish the credibility of the analysis undertaken by Zombie.
The number of incidences of such fraud seem to be increasing. Reuters' claims that its press vehicle was deliberately targeted by the IDF falls into the same class as the ambulance claims. The bullshit meter is going off the scale.
I wonder if Mr Lefty has any opinion on the second ambulance hoax, where it is plain that no missiles struck the ambulance (the one with rusty cracks at the front and back). He quite probably doesn't feel like sharing it with us in any case, since asserting that only experts can possibly judge the visual evidence would be even less reasonable in that case.
I also wonder why the rah-rah goons whom Mr Lefty looks to for support think that verbiage about 'being left behind by the pack' suffices as discourse. I mean, beyond their inability to actually make sound arguments that aren't some weak form of playing devil's advocate.
So Downer has bought Zombie's story, and the Red Cross is standing by their version of events. Maybe now some more expertise will be brought to bear on the issue.
Did you hear Tony Eastley's theory? He suggests that a missile hit the vehicle but did not explode.
Eastley obviously did not read the press reports or look at the debunking before he made that stupid remark. If everyone at the scene was horribly mistaken about an explosion then where on earth is the unexploded missile or missiles?
These guys are now frantically grasping at straws to cover up the fact that they have been taken for fools.
The missile, travelling at about 500kph, entered the ambulance through the centre of the red cross on the roof of the vehicle - remember it was very precise, deliberate targeting of an ambulance. It fails to explode and magically disappears without doing any damage to the floor of the ambulance.
This whole scenario was designed to prove that the Israelis have deliberately committed a war crime. Read the eye witness accounts and the press conclusions drawn from those accounts.
At best the reports are mistaken which quash the deliberate targeting charge. But given the form already displayed and the precise nature of the reports, this reporting was no innocent mistake.
If this was the evidence that was brought forward to sustain a war crimes charge and Mr Lefty was counsel for the defence, not only would he be seeking a dismissal of all charges he would be looking for those making the charges to be committed for perverting the course of justice.
Amortiser
If this issue was in court then surely Lefty would bring his pet toad Mondo Rock with him to barrack -
"3 - 0 to Mr Lefty your Honour, that was a brilliant cross examination".
Mr Lefty in summing up -
"Members of the jury, Mondo Rock has given me the points here beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore I rest may case"
What on earth are you talking about Simon?
If this issue was in court?
Are you on medication at the moment, because your comment is totally mental?
Amortiser.
Why can't you understand Lefty's point? It's not difficult or complex.
He suspects that the zombietime analysis is correct - as he has stated above - and seems to agree with you that the evidence pulled together is very very persuasive.
All has has done is noted that the zombietime analysis has not yet been objectively proved.
You can regurgitate the main points of the zombietime analysis as much as you want, but you are quite simply wasting your time. We've all read it already, we've all understood the points being made, we've all been influenced by the strength of the arguments put forward.
But we don't know the source of the information, we don't know whether the photos have been doctored or whether other photos exist that have been ignored, we don't know the range or weaponry available to the IDF, we're not explosives experts, we can't rule out that the missile hit something nearby - there's a myriad of things that we don't know and can't be certain of. Most importantly, there has been no right to rebuttal granted to those accused of faking the story.
You may be willing to brush all that aside and believe the story. That's your right and we're all happy for you.
But I'm not willing to treat the analysis as definitive yet, and apparently Lefty isn't either. We do not want to be sucked in by a convincing story that turns out to be a fake (again), particularly since the entity most impacted by this issue, i.e. Israel, hasn't even confirmed the analysis yet.
Give it time amortizer. Once a few other more authorative sources come out to confirm the zombietime anaysis we will get on board. Until then, fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, well . . . you won't do that again (or words to that effect).
Mondo:
You don't have to be an expert to ask the question:
"Where did the unexploded ordinance go?"
There was a missile strike that exploded as per the witness statements or there was not. Where is the evidence from the photographs that there was an exploding missile strike?
BTW now the ICRC is using Lefty's argument that Zombie is an unconfirmed source that should be ignored. Lefty is now in very good company. I'm now waiting to see their explanation of why they have pulled the photo of the ambulance from their web site. This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Except, Amortiser, it is not Lefty's argument that Zombie "is an unconfirmed source that should be ignored". It is his argument that we should remain sceptical until the report is confirmed - he has quite clearly indicated his respect for the strength and persuasiveness of Zombie's argument.
Advising that his readers refrain from accepting the story at face value until there has been authorative confirmation is not the same as saying that the report should be ignored
Really Amortiser - that you continue to willfully misrepresent Lefty's argument after all this time reflects very badly on you.
You either still don't understand Lefty's position, in which case you are pretty thick, or you do understand it but want to pretend that he's argued something else, in which case you are a hopelessly compromised idealogue.
Not really very attractive options for you I'm afraid.
So what're you and Mr Lefty expecting, seriously, Mr Mondo Rah-rah? That this 'expert', when he arrives, is actually going to tell you that missiles exist that cause no more damage to vehicles than making holes in roofs, that they would not displace the interior of the ambulance in any way? You're expecting an expert to come along and tell you that missiles can do the impossible? And if an expert told you that, you would buy it as being remotely plausible? Yes or no answers only thank you, IF that's not too much trouble for you Rah-rah.
The implication of your argument is that only experts can reliably use their brains. In fact, the only ones who've demonstrated that they can't are you and Mr Lefty (and even he's packed in arguing that missiles caused the damage, to both the ambulance and the Reuters van!! What was that you said before about being left behind by the pack Rah-rah?). We, on the other hand, have taken note that there has been authorative confirmation - and the 'authority' that 'confirmed' it for us was reality.
Amuse me further. Explain why reality is not good enough for you.
that missiles exist that cause no more damage to vehicles than making holes in roofs, that they would not displace the interior of the ambulance in any way?
That is, of course, NOT what the photographs show.
Bzzt. Try again.
Hey Kusabi.
Matt Price in The Australian today makes the following comment:
Downer has had a bit to say about the media this week. In a speech to publishers and editors, he lambasted media outlets for dishonest, lazy and inaccurate reporting, citing an alleged hoax emanating from the conflict in Lebanon.
DID YOU SEE THAT?!!?! - Price said alleged when describing the hoax - HE IS CLEARLY IMPLYING THAT THE AMBULANCE STORY IS TRUE!!!!
Well, at least according to you clowns who apparently interpret anything other than complete and total acceptance of the Zombietime analysis to be support for the original story.
If remaining sceptical is good enough for The Australian (and probably any journalist worth his/her salt out there), then it's good enough for Lefty. Case closed.
BTW - the Matt Price article is blog-enabled. So I look forward to seeing you run over there to insult and belittle him about why 'reality is not good enough' for him.
Face it - your childish insistance that everyone must accept the zombietime analysis without any further corroboration or proof is pathetic. Your argument is shot.
Well fuck me - it just gets worse and worse for you Blairites. From the Australian editorial section today:
Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place. This newspaper was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against
So who's the Terry Lane now eh?
You all owe Lefty a massive apology. Are any of you decent enough to offer it?
(Sound of crickets chirping...)
This is getting really funny now...
After 200 odd comments, abuse and attacks the Blairists have egg all over their faces.
I'm sure they will twist it and spin it as they don't have the spine to apologize.
"Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack."
Great! Except this time the ambulance is standing still instead of moving, and the missile was fired from a drone not a helicopter. Why the changes?
He visited the ambulance after its attack and before the rust formed. He says he had his cameraman with him. Any chance of seeing those photos?
The guy in the ambulance who had his leg blown off had the bleeding stopped because of burns. Have a look at the ambulance. There ain't been no fire in there.
And that isn't all. I know you lefty's want to get one over the righty's after the Terry Lane embarassment, but don't hitch your wagon to this one.
How cowardly of you Eagle Bomber - how utterly spineless.
The Blairites charge against Lefty was quite specific. Lefty has stated over and over that he does not dispute the Zombietime story, but that he retains the right to remain sceptical. This was not enough for you cretins - and you petulantly insisted that that he had no basis to remain sceptical about the Zombietime analysis since it is so obviously flawless. The argument was that only a hopelessly biased anti-Israel ideologue could doubt the analysis.
Well now Australia's only national newspaper - one that took a pro-Israel position duing the war - has come out and disputed the Zombietime analysis. What a surprise.
This vindicates Lefty 100% - and makes you all look like the total fools you are. Total and utter fools.
Now if you're not going to be a man and apologise then just slink off back under the rock you crawled out from.
CHIIIIRRRRPPPPP!!!!
DID YOU SEE THAT?!!?! - Price said alleged when describing the hoax - HE IS CLEARLY IMPLYING THAT THE AMBULANCE STORY IS TRUE!!!!
Are you serious? You think that this one word, 'alleged', carries more weight than all the pictoral evidence Zombie gathered together? Are you so dense that you don't know journalists say 'alleged' all the time? If a journalist described Osama bin Laden as an 'alleged' terorist, would that make you think he might be innocent of all the terrorist acts he's accused of?
But now we do know that Mr Lefty/you didn't want an expert, he/you just wanted someone to come along and support his own beliefs. And you accept the first person who says 'hey, everyone said the IDF shot a massive rocket into an ambulance, and they were right. Because I say so', No, 'this is WHY they were right' No explanation of his reasoning, no comparison of his analysis with Zombie's. Just one authoritative declaration and you eat it up.
And just for Mr Lefty:-
That is, of course, NOT what the photographs show.
Um, yes it is. If a missile had struck the inside of the ambulance the gurney et al would be all over the place. Instead the gurney is still standing upright. Maybe you think since you're not an expert you should deny what your own eyes are telling you.
The Blairites charge against Lefty was quite specific....The argument was that only a hopelessly biased anti-Israel ideologue could doubt the analysis.
Oh, I didn't notice any 'Blairite' say anything about Mr Lefty being an 'anti-Israel ideologue' - we were all too busy serving up facts and such - but I did see Mr Lefty mumble something about how Zombie couldn't be trusted because of his stance on Israel. Which seems to be all you've done here - accuse everyone else of what you and Mr Lefty are guilty of.
Being petulant...misrepresenting other people's positions...being hopelessly compromised ideologues...yep, that's all you. Plus the belligerent and ugly sycophantism that you specialize in. Of no value whatsoever. Your waffle about 'remaining sceptical' doesn't save you since that's just a euphemism for 'wilful ignorance', not taking anything in, denying all evidence so you can carry on being credulous dupes.
Give up Kusabi - you've lost.
It is YOU who is the credulous dupe, it is YOU who has uncritically accepted an anonymous story without seeking to verify it, it is YOU who is the one who has blasted anyone who dared to withhold judgement until more analysis was available.
Lefty (and I) have ALWAYS maintained that the zombietime analysis was credible, but that we were not willing to merely accept it wholesale without corroboration. You and your idiotic fellow travellers abused and insulted us for this position. You argued that only a fool could doubt the Zombietime argument. You accused me of not understanding what the word 'sceptical' means.
Now Australia's largest newspaper has come out and contradicted Zombietime. A real journalist has gone back to Lebanon, researched the issue, and concluded that it is Zombietime who is the fraud, not the original story.
This is 100% vindication for the position taken by both Lefty and I. You have made a total fool of yourself.
If you're too stupid to see that then, well, by all means keep posting and highlighting your lack of intelligence.
I look forward to further opportunities to point out your stupidity.
A real journalist has gone back to Lebanon, researched the issue, and concluded that it is Zombietime who is the fraud, not the original story.
Why can't you share what this fellow has supposedly said about Zombie's work? Has he said anything that would back up his assertions? How do you know he's researched the issue any more than you and Mr Lefty have? Because he said he did?
As far as what you have presented to us goes, this 'real journalist' has said NOTHING. You are convinced by...NOTHING. You have all manner of choice words for those with more sense than to be taken in by...NOTHING.
You really are quite a spectacle. This newspaper has done nothing more than 'contradict' Zombie and you think that validates your position '100%' why exactly? Because you are...desperate for vindication? Why not just stop spewing nonsense if you're so concerned about royally embarrassing yourself? That's what tends to happen when you 'withhold judgment' far past the point at which it is sensible to make up one's own mind.
'You have made a total fool of yourself'...'It is YOU who is the credulous dupe'...'I look forward to further opportunities to point out your stupidity'...'keep posting and highlighting your lack of intelligence'...
Calm down Mondo, sheesh. I didn't mention Mr Lefty in my comment at all. I was having a go at Chulov and the Australian's lame editorial.
You said the Australian has disputed Zombietime's analysis. I would suggest that all they have done is say the equivalent of "Did so!"
You claimed that "the argument was that only a hopelessly biased anti-Israel ideologue could doubt the analysis". No, the argument was that some lazy brained pundits will believe any anti-Israel propaganda without question.
Shouldn't Israel have gotten the benefit of "innocent 'til proven guilty"? Too many people were only too willing to believe the story and then they question the doubters instead of questioning the original allegations.
OK Eagle Bomber, I'm willing to admit that I may have mistakenly assumed that you were one of the hordes of Blair dimwits who invaded this site abusing Lefty for remaining sceptical about the Zombietime story.
If this is the case then I apologise - I reserve a special place in my heart for the bullies at Spleenville and tend to react intensly to their idiotic posts.
The good news is that I agree with you. I don't find the Australian rebuttal of the story to be particularly convincing, and remain quite dubious about the original claim by the Red Cross.
But that was never the point here. The point is that Lefty was abused and insulted for daring to suggest that, despite being a persuasive and credible argument, the zombietime story might not be true.
As you can see, his scepticism was clearly reasonable and the attack levelled against him by Kusabi and the likes has been proven baseless.
OK Kusabi
You claim that:
This newspaper has done nothing more than 'contradict' Zombie and you think that validates your position '100%'
Just to demonstrate how capable you are of hearing and understanding the arguments made by your opponents - can you please remind us what my 'position' is?
You said the Australian has disputed Zombietime's analysis. I would suggest that all they have done is say the equivalent of "Did so!"
Actually, there's at least one substantial piece of factual argument in there - the point about this "rust" that Zombietime says proves that the attack can't have happened recently. This is the Australian reporter's response:
We inspected both ambulances, whose mangled roofs were not rusting at the time. By the time the photos used on the blog site were taken, rust had appeared. But this is entirely normal in Lebanon's sultry summer climate, where humidity on the coast does not drop below 70per cent.
Now, I don't know what the truth is about Lebanon and rust, but this is certainly a persuasive response to Zombietime's bland claim about it being hot and dry there. Since at least Chulov has actually been in Lebanon; Zombietime, whoever he or she is, hasn't claimed to have ever been there at all. For all we know, Zombietime could just have made that assertion based on looking at pictures of Lebanon and noting THAT IT LOOKS A BIT DESERT-Y.
But if that's right - and it should come out pretty quickly if Chulov's claims about Lebanon's climate are simply wrong - that's a pretty clear response to the rust argument on which certain people have been relying so heavily.
Mr Lefty,
I am happy that you agree with Zombitime that no missile entered the ambulance. Yet every "eyewitness" account of the incident states that it did, even the updated Chulov piece. Enough to conclude that you should agree that media reports are at the very least exagerated and claims of Israeli crimes overstated.
Notwithstanding that, your suggestion that an airburst munition might account for the damage still fails to account for the evidence. Note in the pictures that the windows of the ambulance were smashed inwards. Whether an explosion occured inside or above the van the windows would have smashed out. Note the roof of the van is dented inwards, which would have caused the gasses in the van to explode outwards.
Ragarding the appearance of rust. I am no expert here, but an annlysis was presented on the Blair sight explaining the difference between relative humidity and absolute humidity. On annlysis the commentor suggested that absolute humidity in Lebanon would be somewhat simmilar to Sydney and therefor so would the rate of rust.
Would exposed metal of a car (combi van) rust similarly in Sydney?
By the way Mundo Rock, Chulov's update is incredulous and discredited. Surely you still don't claim vindication based on that drival.
Hey, guys. Have you read Dan Riehl's recent commentary on the subject?
You know, Dan Riehl, the guy who Tim Blair cites in his first piece on the subject as the originator of the story?
Try this:
As the originator of the Red Cross Ambulance story, I would urge the elements of the blogosphere still running with the story to at least slow down, if not back up. They are increasingly looking like the very drive by media against which we so often rant, running the risk of being exploited by propagandists on another side of an issue. And no matter how much many of us may support that side, propagandists on both sides do exist. For the record, I'm guilty, too.
The fact is ZombieTime's post does not do what it claims, proving the ambulance attack demonstrably false. And if they had operated the way bloggers should, by co-operating and communicating, instead of taking another's story and making it their own, perhaps they would have held back from making some of the unprovable claims they do. As I said, I am no innocent here. Most likely, being frustrated at how some have co-opted much of the work I did is certainly part of why I backed off and started to take a clearer view.
And this:
There was some incredibly sloppy reporting by the MSM media around the ambulance incident. Kevin Sites claiming someone lost two legs comes most to mind. But what I was doing a month ago was asking for someone who could to follow up. Now it has become a larger news story with blogs asserting it never happened. Blogs do not know that to be true and haven't come close to proving it. Right now blogs run as much risk of damaging their credibility by acting as propagandists with this story as they do delivering a big scoop.
As I said, I'm not innocent. Today on my second anniversary, I have to cop to being as caught up as everyone else. While I moderated my posts, apparently some juvenile posting board member was impersonating S R Sidarth and, frankly, I got duped. Last night I went to jump into the Reuter's vehicle story against my better instincts and made a gaffe.
Apologies, anyone?
Game set and match to Lefty.
Back to Spleenville for you Joe. You can masturbate over absolute vs relative humidity with the rest of the armchair experts to your heart's content.
Ah Mundo,
So mature of you to resort to sexual imagery.
Regarding the photographic evidence: It is impossible to conclude that the photo's presented as evidence that the ambulance was hit by a missile actually shows what it claims to show. Unless you can explain the abscence of scortch marks, the imploding wind shield the absence of an entrance and exit hole and the general continued existance of the vehicle. Lefty previously ackowledged that the pictured ambulance was unlikely to have been "hit by a missile" and proposed an alternative thesis. This thesis does not explain the photo graphic evidence, for reasons I have previously outlined.
The alternate hypothesesse are that the photo's are of a different ambulance, in which case it is reasonable to ask why these photo's were originally presented as evidence of "the crime" and were is the evidence of the actual incident? Alternatively, that it never happened.
Regarding Dan Riehl's recent comments. I hate to say it but it proves nothing other than Dan Riehl wants to display more caution in the conclusion drawn from the photos. It certainly does not disprove the allegation (that the ambulance in question was not struck by a missile), only that Dan Riehl is willing to concede the possibility that it wasn't.
Do get the difference? Probably not given your sophmoric intelegence.
Still feel vindicated by Churlov?
In short Mundo, Game far from over and Lefty remains down two set to Love, 5-0 in the third and 40/0.
See I to still some room for doubt
By the By, your most recent update should read NOT VINDICATED BY AN UNLIKELY SOURCE
These vehicles were not struck by missiles!
I don't doubt that at all. As I said, there's very sloppy reporting that went on and I wish it had gotten to the truth. Likely it was another weapon, shrapnel, who knows? That's a far cry from saying it didn't take place, is it not?
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Joe - my name is Mondo, not Mundo. If you continue to deliberately misspell my name I will do the same for you.
Perhaps I will call you 'Joke'.
You have said:
Regarding Dan Riehl's recent comments. I hate to say it but it proves nothing other than Dan Riehl wants to display more caution in the conclusion drawn from the photos. It certainly does not disprove the allegation (that the ambulance in question was not struck by a missile), only that Dan Riehl is willing to concede the possibility that it wasn't.
Joe - you have just described Lefty's position exactly. He has advised that caution should be exercised before drawing any conclusions. This has been his consistent position all along. Read through the posts and you will find nothing that contradicts this.
Do you understand yet? Can you see how you've made yourself look like a fool?
I'm no expert on missiles, but I am a car repairer and I can tell you- you can strip a car back to bare metal and (if it's humid) you can have rust appear by the next morning.
So Adrian (cablog guy) you might be right, but frankly bare steel rusts like crazy mate.
RalphyBoy
Mondo,
Happy now.
Simple english for you.
1) Ambulance was not hit by missile.
2) Ambulance not hit by missile not delibrately targeted
3) Ambulance not delibrately targeted by Israeli missile renders the entire claim a myth!!!
Wow ... what a poo fight. I just love the fact the right is whipping in a massive lather about 'Israel didn't bomb this ambulance.'
Even if they didn't what about the 1000 plus people they did kill...?
Perhaps we'll get an anonymous blog about how the children wrapped in plastic in the morgue photo published in Time was actually showing animatronic dolls planeted there by the evil Hezbollah.
Commenting by HaloScan
