Israel says may have hit ambulance

[Scurrilous]

THE Israeli army has admitted its soldiers may have fired on a Red Cross ambulance during the war in Lebanon - an incident Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed was a hoax that had duped a gullible Australian and international media.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20976291-954,00.html

<snip>

"The claims centred on a controversial July 23 attack in southern Lebanon in which two Red Cross ambulances were destroyed, either by artillery or missiles - injuring at least six Lebanese, including one man whose leg was later amputated.

Initial media reports claimed the Israeli Defence Force targeted the vehicles, firing a missile directly through the roof of one ambulance using the international Red Cross symbol as a target marker.

Others blamed Israeli artillery or armed unmanned drones.

An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility.

"We (IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety," Captain Benjamin Rutland said. "It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.

"There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don't have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

2. This report from HRW contains pics of the ambulances in question:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206

[Kiouni]

3. thanks. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Related threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x160308

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=148879

[Tom Joad]

5. But a third-rate website proved otherwise, Scurri, how can this be???

Perhaps the "experts" at that site... and here... are full of it?

In my view, History Denial... it ain't good anywhere, and is not to be respected anywhere or for anyone.

[pelsar]

9. didnt read the article?

or is this a case of: even if it didnt say what i believe, i can still pretend it does'

[Scurrilous]

46. Never fear...

...said 'expert' is busily preparing a rebuttal to his detractors (if only the ROP* would let him). From another third-rate website:

zombie 12/27/2006 10:37AM PST

#35 Noam Sayin'
Zombie, what's going on with your site?
______________________________

Got fried by a combination of hack-attack and mechanical failure.

I suspect my ROP fan club.

They succeeded in preventing me from posting my rebuttal to the Human Rights Watch report. For now.

But I will return! They can't shut me up forever.


*ROP - Religion of Peace. LGF codespeak for Muslims, muzzies, oil ticks, ragheads, etc. etc.

[msmcghee]

47. What's the URL of that forum? nt

[Englander]

49. Ask the crew at PSU.

Here's a clue;

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Get a hobby.

[Englander]

52. Get a clue.

:)

[Solo_in_MD]

6. I don't see this as a change in position

It says that we were shelling in a nearby area and did not know an ambulance was there. It does not take responsbility nor does it admit anything like a direct rocket/missile attack from a helo.

Its a classic fog of war defense and still well within the Geneva Accords

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Geneva Accords?

What does the Geneva Accords have to do with this incident?

[Solo_in_MD]

26. Intentional targeting of marked medical personnel & equipment

is a violation of the Geneva Accords.

What the IDF said is that they were shelling in the area and if by chance their ordinance took out the ambulance, it was inadvertent since they did not know it was there. Note that the complaints are that it was target by a helo, which would have been a direct violation of the Geneva Accords.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Don't you mean the Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Accords was a peace proposal intended to end the I/P conflict...

[Solo_in_MD]

31. There have been a number of Geneva Accords

one of which was the I/P one. From Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Accord) This article is about the proposal for peace between Israel and Palestine. There was also a Geneva Accord that concerned Vietnam, other Geneva Conventions and other Geneva Conferences.

Depending on the audience, the rules of war agreements are called Geneva Accords...I forgot my audience, and should have used the term Geneva Convention here.

[Englander]

7. Looking at the larger picture -

Summary of the main Lebanese infrastructure damaged by Israeli bombing in the two weeks since the conflict began on 12 July, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Social Affairs.

KEY INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGED IN ISRAELI BOMBING




Airports
Beirut International
Qaleiat domestic
Rayak military

Ports
Beirut
Tripoli
Jounieh

Other transport
Lighthouse, Beirut
Bridges: 62
Fuel stations: 22
Overpasses: 72
Dams: 3
Roads: 600km

Military
Radar installations: 4
Army barracks: 1

Civilian
Private homes: 5,000

Commercial
Tissue paper factory, Bekaa
Bottle factory, Bekaa
Other businesses: 150

Communications
Hezbollah's al-Manar TV station, Haret Hreik, Beirut
MTC mobile phone antenna, Dahr al-Baidar

Utilities
Jiyeh power plant
Sibline power station
Sewage plant, Dair al-Zahrani

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm

[msmcghee]

8. Certainly you read the article before posting this . .

"We (IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety," Captain Benjamin Rutland said. "It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery."

"There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don't have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure."

He made the comments during an Israeli army-hosted inspection of the South Lebanon border given to a group of Australian reporters earlier this month.

While admitting the possibility of a tragic mistake, Captain Rutland cited several incidents during the recent Lebanon conflict in which Hezbollah fighters had stage-managed or misrepresented evidence of civilian casualties.

****************************

While the headline is technically accurate, this seemed like a bit of sensationalism on the part of this Australian newspaper. So I checked out the paper's front page today. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/

Amid the sports stories, Paris Hilton updates and pleas to be kind to pets over the holidays, this "admission of Israeli guilt" as some here have characterized it is nowhere to be found - or even mentioned.

Ho hum.

[breakaleg]

10. What will it take for you to admit it was not a hoax?

[msmcghee]

11. Any objective evidence from a non-biased source . .

. . will do the trick.

The evidence offered from the Lebanon side and Western sources sympathetic to them just doesn't make much sense. Actually none of the facts seem to fit any logical narrative of how Israel might have targeted these two ambulances or how they sustained the inconsistent damage shown in all the photos so far.

I am not saying they are lying - just that they need to provide some evidence that can be verified by someone without an agenda.

It is entirely possible that Israel did target the ambulances as claimed by the Lebanese drivers and supposed victims.

I just want to see some reasonable evidence that makes sense before I condemn someone for an act they may not have committed.

You have to also consider the several proven staged photo-ops Lebanon and sympathetic journalists orchestrated during the conflict.

You also need to consider that only anti-Israeli journalists and organizations were given access to the ambulances.

You also need to consider that if someone who believes they have truthfully been wronged would probably find some unbiased, unimpeachable source to review the evidence and issue a report.

But I am still open to the possibility and I'm waiting for that evidence. If it shows up I'll gladly admit that my suspicions were wrong - as I have said repeatedly.

[breakaleg]

12. In the article quoted, the guy came pretty close to admitting it. Given what he's

admitting to and all of the accusations floating around, I'd say that is as close as we will ever get.

[msmcghee]

13. He admitted to nothing.

He said no-one knows what happened because the Israelis have not been given access to the ambulances or the witnesses - and that they have no drone footage that shows this attack to have occurred.

Remember, HRW's latest conclusion was that it was a drone and as I understand it drones are flown by video images transmitted back to a control center where the pilot is located - meaning that recordings of that video would certainly be available.

He said it could have been artillery as there was a battle going on in the area.

I think you were swayed by the sentence in the article: "An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility."

That was the reporter's statement - not any admission by the IDF. It seems likely that this sentence was added to justify the sensationalist headline and had nothing to do with the IDF's statements.

Remember, this was a reporter who seems to have an interest in Israeli atrocities - who was invited by the IDF along with other journalists on a trip of the area on the S of the border. This reporter asked a question about the ambulance incident.

The IDF spokesman said basically, we don't know what happened but in war anything's possible. Only in the fevered imagination of some here could that be seen as an admission of guilt - or anything close to it.

[pelsar]

14. if i recall correctly....

HRW said they have no evidence of any missile, shell or anything, so therefor its probably a new israeli secret weapon.....

a simpler translation is: we havent the slightest proof that israel did anything wrong here, but we'll blame them anyway....

[msmcghee]

16. Just for the record . .

From the new HRW report,

***************************
Human Rights Watch originally reported that the ambulances had been struck by missiles fired from an Israeli airplane, but that conclusion was incorrect. In its follow-up investigation, Human Rights Watch considered all of the possible sources for the missiles that hit the ambulances, including Israeli air plane fire, Israeli helicopter fire, Israeli drone fire, or Israeli artillery fire, as well as the possibility that the ambulances had been hit by a Hezbollah-fired Katyusha rocket or artillery.

A missile from an Israeli airplane can be ruled out, as such missiles would have caused much more massive destruction and have left a huge crater. The precision with which the vehicles were struck from the air, the limited damage caused, and the non-existence of heavy shrapnel, also rule out an artillery-fired round from Israel or Hezbollah, as well as an errant Katyusha rocket fired by Hezbollah. It is nearly impossible that two artillery rounds or two Katyusha rockets would have hit the ambulances with such accuracy, and they would have caused much more pronounced damage and left behind shrapnel as evidence.

The limited damage and the high precision of the strikes on the ambulances suggest that the weapon was a smaller type of missile fired from an Israeli drone or helicopter. Israel is in possession of an arsenal of highly precise missiles that can be fired from either helicopters or drones and are designed to limit the damage to their targets. The Israeli-designed and manufactured SPIKE anti-armor missile system7 and the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal explosive) missile8 are examples of smaller missiles designed to cause smaller explosions and limit collateral damage. Such missiles cause less powerful explosions than the previous generation of US-manufactured TOW and Hellfire missiles (often used by the IDF in assassination attempts against Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank), which would have destroyed the ambulances completely. While the smaller missiles can be fired from either drones or helicopters, none of the witnesses reported hearing helicopters in the air before or during the attack, so it is most likely the missiles were fired from an Israeli drone.
**************************

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/4.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

17. How about actually reading the report?

First up, I notice that you have a problem with blame being placed without proof when it comes to Israel, but I didn't see that same concern from you when it comes to blame being placed without proof on Hizbollah, Lebanese citizens etc...


From the report:

'On the basis of this investigation, we conclude that the attack on the
ambulances was not a hoax: Israeli forces attacked two Lebanese Red Cross
ambulances that night in Qana, almost certainly with missiles fired from an
Israeli drone flying overhead.'

'The limited damage and the high precision of the strikes on the ambulances
suggest that the weapon was a smaller type of missile fired from an Israeli
drone or helicopter. Israel is in possession of an arsenal of highly precise
missiles that can be fired from either helicopters or drones and are designed to
limit the damage to their targets. The Israeli-designed and manufactured SPIKE
anti-armor missile system7 and the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal
explosive) missile8 are examples of smaller missiles designed to cause smaller
explosions and limit collateral damage. Such missiles cause less powerful
explosions than the previous generation of US-manufactured TOW and Hellfire
missiles (often used by the IDF in assassination attempts against Palestinian
militants in Gaza and the West Bank), which would have destroyed the ambulances
completely. While the smaller missiles can be fired from either drones or
helicopters, none of the witnesses reported hearing helicopters in the air
before or during the attack, so it is most likely the missiles were fired from
an Israeli drone.

Human Rights Watch cannot conclusively state which missiles were used in the
attack on the ambulances, because our researchers did not find diagnostic
shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature
of some missiles used by the IDF. The DIME is a weapon with a casing designed to
disintegrate in an effort to minimize collateral damage from its fragmentation.
Regardless of the weapon used, the IDF certainly has the capability to attack
vehicles with limited impact missiles designed to cause low collateral damage.

The accuracy, limited lethality, and limited structural damage caused by
drone-fired missiles are consistent with other similar incidents documented by
Human Rights Watch involving Israeli drone-fired missiles. For example, an
Israeli drone also attacked a white van carrying 17 members of the Shaita family
traveling near Kafra on July 23, hitting the van in the middle of its roof and
causing a limited explosion that killed three persons and wounded 14, but did
not destroy the vehicle. Human Rights Watch also observed similar limited damage
caused by the July 18 missile strikes on a convoy of the United Arab Emirates’
Red Crescent Society transporting medicines, vegetable oil, and food supplies,
as well as a subsequent attack on a convoy of fuel smugglers hit in the Bekaa
Valley on July 19.

It is clear that the limited damage to the ambulances was not caused by a
malfunction of the missile but rather by a weapon designed to cause limited
damage. The conclusion that the ambulances were hit by a smaller missile fired
from an Israeli drone also addresses some of the “hoax” claims, such as the
statement by Australia’s foreign minister that his skepticism came from the fact
that “the ambulance would have been pulverized if it had been hit by a
missile.”9 In fact, many of the Lebanese vehicles hit by drone-fired missiles
during the 2006 conflict were not “pulverized,” sustaining only limited damage.'

[msmcghee]

19. As usual VC, what's your point?

Pelsar made a statement concerning the HRW report. I added a related section of that report "Just for the record".

This thread is about one particular incident. You seem to be trying to discredit me because I did I not express concern " . . when it comes to blame being placed without proof on Hizbollah, Lebanese citizens etc...".

I thought another poster just sent you links to a good website that described what a straw-man argument is. This seems to be one of your favorites - so I suggest you go back and read that site again, "very very slowly", because I don't think you got it.

The (straw man) question of whether I place blame - or not - on other parties in other situations has nothing to do with the truth of HRW's assertions in this instance - which is the topic of the thread.

On top of that I have not placed blame here on anybody. I said I have seen no evidence that supports the assertion that Israel purposely targeted these two ambulances - but if that evidence is presented I will change my opinion as to Israel's guilt. I generally believe parties are innocent until proven guilty. This HRW report doesn't come close IMO.

I will make an observation I made before about this. HRW, in their revised report and based on their investigation, say that they are now certain that Israel did target these two ambulances.

Why isn't HRW (or some other group allied with them) taking this "new conclusive evidence" to some world body for war crimes and pursuing a conviction of the IDF / Israel? I would think that the crime of purposely targeting two ambulances would justify such efforts. After all, wouldn't a successful conviction help to prevent such atrocities in the future?

Or, is it just not that important to HRW to pursue this. Like, maybe they have better things to do than prevent war crimes.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. My post wasn't a reply to you...

You seem to be trying to discredit me because I did I not express concern " . . when it comes to blame being placed without proof on Hizbollah, Lebanese citizens etc...".

My reply was to pelsar, not you...

For the record, I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in any discussion with you which is why I've ignored yr posts in this thread and quite a few others...

[msmcghee]

22. The fact remains.

Your argument is still a straw man whether aimed at me or pelsar. And you still can't explain why HRW doesn't bring charges to some world body against Israel / IDF. Inquiring minds want to know.

(I suggest you put me on ignore. Then you won't have to read my posts that destroy your arguments so thoroughly.)

[Violet_Crumble]

25. And the fact remains...

That nonsense like this comment in yr post is why I generally ignore yr posts. 'Destroying your arguments so thoroughly'? Suuure. Why I ignore yr posts is because most of the time yr posts to me are abusive and you hold particular views that I abhore and which I believe no progressive should hold....


And you still can't explain why HRW doesn't bring charges to some world body against Israel / IDF.

That's because it's not the role of HRW to bring charges against Israel or any other country.

[msmcghee]

28. Well actually . .

. . from the HRW website,

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.

We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.

*****************************

But, perhaps you know better than they do what their mission is.

(And you're not doing a very good job ignoring me.) :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

30. They do NOT bring charges against countries...

What is so hard to understand about that? Try pointing out the bit where they say they bring charges against states and you'll have some sort of point. Actually, no you still won't have a point, because the dispute in this case isn't to do with bringing charges against Israel, but as to which is more credible - Human Rights Watch or the right-wing Zombietime...

(I'm not ignoring you while yr insisting on responding to my posts in this thread. Learn to deal with it)

[msmcghee]

32. Well actually - you're wrong again,

From the HRW website,

# We were among the first to call for an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and have worked extensively with the tribunal's investigators and prosecutors. Six of the seven counts on which the tribunal finally indicted Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 were cases that Human Rights Watch had documented in Kosovo.

# We have provided extensive evidence of human rights abuses to the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, where the genocide in 1994 killed more than half a million people. Our expert testimony and legal analysis have helped convict several genocidaires.

# We played an active role in the legal action against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London and helped to buttress the important principle that even former heads of state can be held accountable for the most heinous human rights crimes. The "Pinochet precedent" has established that dictators who block their prosecution at home can be tried anywhere in the world. Human Rights Watch is also leading a global campaign so that all countries ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court, to prosecute those accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

http://hrw.org/about/whoweare.html

*********************************

So you see HRW is often quite active when it comes to condemning states and their leaders to world courts when it feels it is justified. My question as to why they don't do that here seems quite on point to me.

************************************

Re: The ignore thing. This is a little silly but I am not the one who childishly said that I ignore your posts. You are the one who said you ignore my posts. I only suggested that you automate that procedure. It doesn't bother me at all that you respond to my posts. I am willing to point out your factual errors as long as you continue to make them - to me or anyone else. When it comes right down to it - it kinda makes my day.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. No, I'm not...

You said: 'And you still can't explain why HRW doesn't bring charges to some world body against Israel / IDF.'

Suddenly you switch it to: 'So you see HRW is often quite active when it comes to condemning states and their leaders to world courts when it feels it is justified.'

What is so fucking hard to understand about the fact that they DO NOT BRING CHARGES against countries as they don't have the power to do it??

[msmcghee]

37. So, you are saying I'm wrong because I used the phrase "bring charges"?

Can't you ever admit that you are wrong?

The point I made is that HRW is not pursuing this to higher authorities, like war crime tribunals and such - and that seems suspicious to me.

Let me reword my question in the same terms HRW uses to describe their mission.

I asked, ". . why HRW doesn't bring charges to some world body against Israel / IDF."

How about I change that to,

" . . why doesn't HRW

a) call for an international war crimes tribunal (against those who targeted the ambulances)

b) provide extensive evidence of human rights abuses to that war crimes tribunal (the evidence they say they have gathered that now proves that the ambulances were targeted), and . .

c) play an active role in the legal action against (the perpetrators in the IDF and Israeli government who were responsible for this alleged atrocity)?

My same question still stands. Any suggestions?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. That's it exactly...

I admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, btw. And in this case I wasn't....

I've got a suggestion where you can place yr ever-shifting goalpost questions but it wouldn't be pretty and my post might get deleted :)

[msmcghee]

40. My goal posts are in exactly the same place they were before.

I simply decorated them in terms that you can't refute - HRW's own terms to describe their mission.

The thrust of my question - (Why isn't HRW pursuing this to some higher authority?) - is exactly the same question I raised before.

That's the question you still seem to have no answer for.

(I don't think the question is terribly important to this extended part of the discussion. It's kind of a side issue for me. But, now I'm curious to see what you'll come up with next to avoid answering it.)

[pelsar]

33. details....please

First up, I notice that you have a problem with blame being placed without proof when it comes to Israel, but I didn't see that same concern from you when it comes to blame being placed without proof on Hizbollah, Lebanese citizens etc..

Hizballa made it clear that they are attacking israeli hospitals, schools, nurserys, apts etc. Was there any doubt that hizballa was firing the missiles into israel?. I didnt know there was doubt....

this is the "tell tale sentence"
Our researchers did not find diagnostic shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature
of some missiles used by the IDF.....

they cant find any evidence so they decide it must be an israeli experimental weapon...(do they have a spy in the IDF research division)?....how would they know what the characteristics of the israeli experimental weapon....i believe they're usually kept secret.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Who said anything about Hezbollah firing missiles into Israel??

Pelsar, I'm referring to the way that the rightwing blogs rushed to blame Hezbollah for inventing a hoax without having a single shred of proof to do so....


they cant find any evidence so they decide it must be an israeli experimental weapon...(do they have a spy in the IDF research division)?....how would they know what the characteristics of the israeli experimental weapon....i believe they're usually kept secret.

Why do you insist on asking me questions you should be asking HRW if you really want answers?

[pelsar]

39. the hoax by hizballa?

I never claimed it was planned by hizballa.....i personally think it was one of two things:

possibly the result of "fallout" from an exploding shell nearby (with the real victims being outside the ambulance)

or perhaps some local initiative...but i've actually never even mentioned that.


the far right like the far left, both live in a fantasy world.....each will make claims based on their beliefs, not much to discuss with them. I've met the far right during my reserves.........things they believe, say and do are simply not to be believed (but they sure do, and they have that in common with the far left-both are "religious")

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I never said you claimed it...

What I said was that you don't seem to have a problem with blame being placed on Hezbollah for inventing a hoax without there being a shred of proof while you have problems with blame being placed on Israel without proof. That's not saying that you yrself have placed blame, but is talking about others like Zombietime that have placed blame...

[breakaleg]

18. Actually what swayed me was this:

"We (IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety," Captain Benjamin Rutland said. "It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.

"There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don't have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure."

So, they don't "target" ambulances, but it's possible they may have hit one in the area as we were shooting there. Why is this not clear to you? Again, it's about as close as Israel will get to an admission given the huge uproar and charges of a hoax which I bet was led in large part by defenders of Israel.

[msmcghee]

20. Israel was condemened by HRW . .

. . for purposely targeting the two ambulances. Not for incidental damage and injuries caused by their shelling in the area. Nice try though.

[breakaleg]

23. my mistake. I thought the charge from supporters of Israel was that it NEVER happened, that it

was a hoax. You'll have to pardon me. I must have read ALL those reports incorrectly.

[msmcghee]

24. Apology accepted. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

29. You should have stuck a sarcasm tag on that post n/t

[breakaleg]

42. I think it was pretty obvious. Unless someone chose not to see what was right there.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I think some choose not to see what was right there n/t

[msmcghee]

45. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Actually, I did notice that it was meant to be sarcastic. But these damned forums posts always convey sarcasm so poorly.

That leaves open the possibility that further subtle points can be made using that particular weakness of the medium to advantage. I indulged. :thumbsup:

[pelsar]

34. reality check...

during war, with bombs falling, shells flying, bullets shooting, grenades being tossed....ambulances get hit, wounded get hit again, field hospitals get hit, soldiers surrending get shot, civilians get killed.....war is rather messy.

war is like that, and the IDF is made up of regular people, to pretend otherwise is to place them in a "special catagory"

and the spokesman said it could have been hit, they were in a war zone, he/she didnt know......problem is, the lack of forensic evidence remains lacking.....

[breakaleg]

44. So now it's a case of shit happens but

recently you denied the IDF had anything to do with it. Which is it?

[pelsar]

48. be accurate...dont make things up....

i claim and have to see otherwise that the ambulances werent hit by missiles, shells, or even "experimental missiles, given the lack of physical evidence of an explosion. The IDF spokesmen simply said he didnt know

i also claim that war is messy with people making decisions of limited info....

no contradiction...keep looking

[msmcghee]

51. A Point-by-Point Examination of the Document Titled "The 'Hoax' That Wasn't"

Here's the zombietime response to the HRW report for those following this story.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw /

On December 19, 2006, the international advocacy organization Human Rights Watch issued a detailed, intensively researched report unequivocally affirming the factuality of an intentional Israeli attack on Red Cross ambulances at Qana on July 23. The report (titled "The 'Hoax' That Wasn't") by Human Rights Watch was created specifically to counter the claims made in my original essay titled "The Red Cross Ambulance Incident."

This commentary is a response to Human Rights Watch's new allegations.

INTRODUCTION

If you are not already familiar with the claims and counter-claims concerning the July 23, 2006 "Red Cross Ambulance Incident" at Qana, Lebanon, then this article will likely make little sense to you. If you have not yet done so, first invest the time to read my original report that started this discussion:

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident, at zombietime.com.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance /

Next, read the entirety of Human Rights Watch's rebuttal of that essay:

The "Hoax" That Wasn't: The July 23 Qana Ambulance Attack, by Human Rights Watch.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/3.htm

The story, in a very small nutshell, is this:

*********************************************

PS - I placed this post on a new thread simply to make it easier to navigate as it was an obvious extension off this one that already had 50 posts. But, whatever. I figured some here would object.

[Englander]

53. Seen this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x161492#161559

[msmcghee]

54. Of course I saw it.

There have now been several hundred posts in several threads (with links) referring to either the first zombietime report or this new one as well as to both HRW reports.

Are you suggesting that now that zombietime has offered a rebuttal that further references this HRW report - even if it's not used to start a new thread - it should be censored? Hardly savory tactics.

You could try to address some of the points raised in the new zt report if the topic is so interesting to you.

[Englander]

56. So, please explain this -

A thread is locked with the comment "vanity site", & you've just re-posted the comments, with a link
to the vanity site?

Please provide a response without any clueless abuse, or repugnant accusations, if that is at all
possible.

[msmcghee]

57. I thought the previous post explained it well enough.

But I guess not. I'll try again.

HRW had a press conference to announce the completion of an investigation that says their original accusations against the IDF for purposely targeting the two ambulances were correct after all.

The investigation was obviously an attempt to address the zombietime debunking of their original accusations - which recieved great coverage on the internet and was referenced in several mainstream media articles on the topic - probably much to the chagrin of HRW - who felt they needed to reinforce the credibility of their accusations.

Numerous news reports and web blogs have used the zombietime article as the most credible debunking source of the original HRW accusations.

I started a new thread based on zombietimes follow-up further debunking both HRW's original assertions and their new investigation/report. In a previous thread I predicted that new information would be coming out about this. It did and I brought it to the attention of this forum.

I realized that I was starting a thread from a non-recognized news source at the time. However, there were already 50 posts in the thread that was running on this and I hoped to make navigation easier in case a large number of posts were to be added. The last thread on this topic went several days and well over 100 posts and became very difficult to navigate.

Obviously the mod disagreed with my concerns and locked the thread - probably admonished to do so by several alerts. I figured that might happen at the time.

So - I then attached my post referencing the new zombietime article to the end of the existing legal thread - where I should have placed it to start with.

As to your concerns: I suspect that the mods do not consider the new zombietime report unworthy of being referenced in this thread. Only, that it is unworthy of being the OP for a new thread on the topic. Since both zombietime articles are central to the discussion of whether or not the IDF purposely targeted the ambulances - and since the latest HRW report was obviously intended to counter the zombietime debunking of their first report - I can see why the mods took this position.

Also, you will find no emotional harangues or unjustified rants in the zombietime article. It is a very objective attempt to analyze what is known about this specific event. He goes out of his way to acknowledge HRW's points where they have some.

In fact, I can't imagine that this thread would make any sense to someone without being able to reference both HRW reports and both zombietime articles - because that is what the discussion in this thread is actually about - the accusations and the supposed debunking of those accusations.

I can understand however, why you would prefer that the thread be only about the accusations by HRW, allowing no evidence to the contrary. It seems the mods did not agree with you this time.

Is that enough of an explanation for you?

[Englander]

58. Did anyone read any further than the first line?

I didn't.

[msmcghee]

55. I would note that this guy's analysis puts the new HRW . .

. . "report" to shame. I also notice that the HRW report was released right in the middle of Christmas holidays when the fewest would see it.

Also that it contained almost no new information that any reasonable person could use to better understand the many unanswered questions that the original HRW report left dangling.

I also note that zombietime's response was delayed by a week while he dealt with some kind of attack on his server that happened just as the new HRW report was being released. Interesting coincidence.

The zombietime follow up OTOH addresses every possible question that could be asked at this time. HRW should take a lesson from this guy. I don't know who he is but he has an ability to look at things far more objectively and fairly than a large organization with a 30 million dollar budget.

I have donated to HRW in the past. I now suspect there was a good chance I was financing some propaganda effort - rather than an honest effort to find justice in the world as I had been led to believe. How sad for HRW and those in the world who truly need help from oppression.