Can anyone help me counter this right wing propaganda?

[booley]

It seems that whole Lebanon thing has made the right wingnuts even nuttier. They are bending over backwards to "prove' that all the civilian casualties in lebanon were "faked"

yeah, as if the media has been anti-israel all this time.

Anyway, this is the latest..that Israel really didn't fire on ambulances in lebanon...

More MSM Propaganda Exposed

There's a story just starting to make the rounds of the MSM outlets - that Israel is targeting ambulances. You can find it mentioned in the New York Times, the Guardian and several more outlets. But it appears our friends from ... wait for it, that's right, Qana, may be up to some new tricks.

The story goes that the Israeli's struck two ambulances, injuring nine people, severing one man's leg. There's only one problem; it looks as though it isn't true.
....................

Here are all the Red Cross bulletins from the region, they barely mention the van incident. I doubt they believe it themselves. But Time sure loved the story. The Boston Globe made four stories out of it. It's even a Yahoo favorite photo.

Update: Some might say another conspiracy theory. Really? While it's linked above, read this, you'll see he claims to have been dispatched to a home. There is nothing about meeting another ambulance, as other versions claim. And why would he make this statement:

As a Red Cross volunteer I need to be very clear that we are not political -- we rescue anyone who needs help," the 32-year-old Zatar told IPS. As a colleague unloaded bodies from bloody stretchers, Zatar said "whether they are civilian, a resistance fighter or an Israeli soldier, our policy is to help any human who needs help. But the Israelis seem to be attacking us now."

No, he's not political. Not much. So why the different versions of the story then? It doesn't add up. In one version:


A middle-aged man lost his leg, his mother was partly paralyzed, and shrapnel pierced a little boy's head.

In another:

Mr Fawaz was unconscious after losing one leg, and suffering severe fractures to the other. His son had lost part of a foot

In one story the elderly woman is critical, in another she's unscathed.

An elderly woman patient was relatively unscathed,....

Google different versions, you'll find him inside the ambulance giving an IV in one version, but all of the medics standing outside in another. Maybe he should make up his non-political mind.

But just like with the story from Qana ... see lgf - the AP will probably just give themselves more rewards.

http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=460374&all_topics=0
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/08/more_propaganda.html

This whole thing sounds fishy, as if they took bits and pieces and then made a conspiracy out of it. And reporters do often get conflicting stories, especially if they get things second hand. And why would the UN and Red Cross lie on behalf of hezzbollah?

But I would appreciate any help from people who have been watching this and could help me de-construct this. I don't know about what it looks like when missiles hit and if it would make a hole like the picture or not. This story sounds like crap but I need help in figuring out how.

[C_U_L8R]

1. a make-believe conspiracy

around make-believe news...
would you expect anything
coming from a rightwinger
to be anything but Faux???

[booley]

2. yes but

what exactly MAKES IT make beleive?

What did the guiy say that was innaccurate or biased?

[3dman]

3. Considering the fact that Reuters was caught

red handed running doctored photos, and still has yet to apologize, I would say that skepticism of the reporting in that region should be SOP.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The freelance photographer was fired.

And the picture was removed. And it was, as far as I know, exactly one photo.

[3dman]

9. Actually, there were several photos,

and enough evidence of doctoring that hundreds of photos had to be pulled. And it wasn't Reuters that found the problem, and they only begrudgingly removed them after intense pressure and a big black eye. They still have yet to apologize.

[gratuitous]

10. You're a little behind the times

I'm just a guy with a modem and access to Google, but here's what I found on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/reuters.photog.reut/

"The news and information agency announced the decision in an advisory note to its photo service subscribers. The note also said Reuters had tightened editing procedures for photographs from the conflict and apologized for the case."


Emphasis mine. Will you now apologize for your misstatement?

[3dman]

12. Yep, I missed that,

and therefore I retract and apologize for my misstatement.

:silly:

[stop the bleeding]

4. whatever - people can split hairs all they want

this is what matters - photos from yahoo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1866366

[TheFarseer]

5. Why the hell would you believe Hezbollah propaganda

over Israeli propaganda? I don't totally trust Israel, but I sure as hell don't trust Hezbollah. There's alot of crap going on on both sides. Much skepticism should be exercised when considering obscure factoids coming out of this conflict.

[MiaCulpa]

6. Doctored photos

After the one incident with the reuters photog, we'll no doubt here conspiracy from here to eternity. I doubt most of the people cobbling together the conspiracy theories know what a missile hole looks like, either. The photos in the reuters incident, I really didn't see what all the fuss was about. Most of the photos looked more, 'damning' before the alterations, imo. I have no idea what the photogs motive was, but it appeared to be more related to wanting to appear on the scene sooner than he actually was. A lot of the accustations of altered photos that have resulted because of this have already been proven to be false. There was a case of a man who was in one photograph being rescued from the rubble of a building hit by missiles, who then appeared in another photo working to rescue people. That was immediately dubbed a 'fake' when in fact the man was relatively unscathed by the building collapse, and went to work straight away to help friends and family still trapped.

In short, much ado about nothing, methinks. Certain 'truths' as it were, cannot be hidden, altered, or even made to appear worse than the reality, regardless of anyone's political motives at the time they are captured on film.

[Wonk]

7. If Hajj thought nobody would notice such amateurish use of the clone tool

he's braindead. Makes me wonder about motive for doing it like that in the first place.

[BushOut06]

11. What does it fucking matter?

To be honest, both sides are going to use propaganda. That's what countries do during war. I would be hesitant to put much stock in ANYTHING that comes out of the region.

Fact is, it really doesn't matter. Both sides were attacking civilian areas. The days when opposing armies met out in open field are pretty much over. Now, whenever there is war, innocent civilians are going to pay the price.

[Fozzledick]

13. You mean ambulances like these?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ONKb9J2YeU

[booley]

15. Did you look at that video?

I mean really look at it?

first, as a video editor, I am always cynical of anything as heavily edited as that.

Please whiel we see the masked gun men go intot the ambulences we dont' see them come out. Hwo do we know those ambulences weren't stolen? Or that they got in and forced the driver to take them? we can't tell that from the video. And like I said, there are obvioulsy large portions of the video that we aren't seeing.

And does it really make sense that the UN is conspiring to support hezzbollah? I mean, this is the same UN that has passed useless resolution against israel, none of which they have ever been committed to enforcing. And they sat on thier hands while Lebanon burned.

If they were cahoots with hezzbollah, you would think they would be better at it.

And how does this show that israel wasn't firing on ambulences? I mean, injured people ina war zone isn't al that hard to imagine.

i hardly need to buy hezzbollah propganda to recognize Israeli propaganda.

[lisainmilo]

14. Unfortunately people believe this crap

Most do not look into issues. They believe the 6 pm ( corporate owned ) news and thats what they go with. Thats what is scary! Good for you for looking further into what you read. This administration, I believe wants to lead us into a war. I believe they want its citizens to be in fear and to hate. Fear of war. Fear of them. Fear Fear Fear. These are Hitler tactics.

[booley]

16. Well I did something simple

I looked at the sources this guy gave me. And as I thought, it was al crap. The writer claimed sources said thinsg they didn't, ignored what was actually written in the articles, made really anti-common sense claims and even tried to cite pics as proof that didn't exist.

In a nut shell, here's what I wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=465203&all_topics=0
http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=460374&LastModified=4675585228647243759&all_topics=0

You know, I was going to just let this lie.

I mean the idea that the American media, which has been so pro-israel suddenly turned around one day and long with the UN and red Cross and numerouse other eyewitnesses would all suddenly conspire to frame israel for targeting civilans would be ludicrouse if it wasn't so sick. Especailly when the IDF pretty much said they were targeting civilians. (Oh sure they claimed that it was because hezzbollah was using "human shields. But why have human shields when you know your enemy has no compunction blasting through them to get to you?!)

But I decided to do something the cons apparently DIDN'T bother to do. Actually FOLLOW this guy's links see what they said.

Hmm, so where to start?

Well first, we have this..."Unfortunately for Mr. Chaalan, it's doubtful the second ambulance exists and his ambulance wasn't struck by a missile at all."

Well that would be a big discrepency. Suddenly a second ambulance appears in the story when there wasn't before. And from what this guy says, there couldn't have been a second ambulance.

Here's the problem, if this guy has any evidence that there couldn't have been a second ambulence, he never shows it.

Oh he tells us it's "Italic doubtful " there was a second ambulence and to prove it, he tells us to look here... http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast%26curPhoto=1

But what exactly is on that page ?
This...
?x=380&y=226&sig=e5gth6Zrp.fmFnyJ1XjoxA--

How exactly Shrub pointing to himself while idioticly declaring that hezzbollah had been 'defeated " proves that there couldn't be a second ambulence escapes me. maybe it's "con logic".

Admittedly there are over 404 pictures. I did look through several but still couldn't find what this guy was reffering too. Maybe I missed it. maybe it's on pic 384 or 401. But then why not just post the picture himself? Why make people search for a picture that doesn't seem to exist?

Of course there is another example of how this guy is full of shit on there being no second ambulence.

"It seems when he first told the story, there was only one ambulance and the alleged missile strike took place on the 23. And that's also what he told the Red Cross, though the second ambulance was added. "

And here's the problem with that. either this guy is really sloppy and stupid OR he's LYING.

Why? because to show there is a discrepency he points us to this http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187

Now remember, this guy claimed that this is the first time the story was told. he said in it that there was no second ambulence.

So what does the story on that link actually say?

"Immediately after we got the call we took three ambulances and headed to Qana," he said. "But three bombs nearly hit our first ambulance, so we turned back."

They attempted to head out to Qana a second time, but again their ambulances were attacked, and they returned to base. "They were keeping us away," Shaulan said. They succeeded a third time, just before 9 am. "

Maybe I am just a crazy liberal but doesn't an "s" on the end of the word ambulence imply a PLURAL..as in MORE THEN ONE ?

Next we have the writer trying desperatly to spin this into saying that this couldn't have been a missle strike.

Lets start with the most obviouse probem with his logic, shall we?

"It seems the missile that allegedly hit the van from above never managed to get inside."

Of course the actual missle apparently didn't get inside. Just as all the stories this guy posts (in his attemtp to create a conspiracy) says. And logic would hold this as well. If the missle had exploded inside the ambulence, there wouldn't have been survivors to talk about it later. Instead the shrapnel got in, causing further damage to the passengers. (again as the variouse articles all say)

But here's an even better example that this guy is full of crap.

Naturally any conspiracy theory needs to account for evidence that contradicts what they want to claim. And this guy is no different.

You see, he has to explain how, if that ambulence wasn'treally attacked, did it get damaged?

"Thanks to of all places, aljazeera, I submit that this is the van in question, one in which someone planted a bomb back in June."

There is no picture of the van in question on the Al Jazeera article. So who knows what it looks like. But the story did say.."A bomb exploded in an ambulance in the Lebanese town of  Kfar Kila on Tuesday, according to Hizb Allah officials.."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7103CA73-DE55-4FC6-80D0-FEBE406ABC80.htm

Oh and how convenient, they get to imply that this is all a hezzbollah plot. Of course this also means that the red cross would have to have been a willing accomplice. (uh-huh...)

But look at the roof...

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/26/redcross_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg

Hmm, the story from AL Jezzera said that the bomb was IN the ambulence in question. But that roof is obvioulsy concaved. In other words whatever hit it came from ABOVE.

And who would put a bomb on the roof anyway? Besides that any schmoe could SEE the bomb, it also wouldn't do nearly as much damage as if it was under or inside. And the AL Jazeera article did say the bomb had been INSIDE the ambulence.

Whatever hit that roof was NOT INSIDE .

Of course it only gets worse from there.

This guy says that the rest of the damage isn't consistent.

The rust on the rest of the shrapnel holes for instance.

But am I only one who ever owned a car while living near a beach? Warm salty ocean air..pretty good at creating rust.

And how do we even know that the other holes weren't there before the missle hit? IN FACT, how do we know that the red cross didn't do what a lot of people do and cover already existing rust with paint? So the damage from the missle only uncovered rust that was already there.

No conspiracy is needed. Just some common sense. Something this writer and anyone who beleived his crap obviously lacked when reading this.

and speaking of stupidity. The writer says "The image being shopped around with the story by the MSM is of this van. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187

That's his link. Problem is THERE IS NO IMAGE from that link. In fact, it's the same link he keeps misquoting from (as i showed above)

So how can we compare a non-existent image to the pic he shows us from Indy media?



Was this guy just stupid? Or did he know his audience wouldn't check up on what he said? That all he had to do was IMPLY a contradiction and his target audience would take his word at face value?

In any case, since I just happen to have been TRAINED to take forensic photographs in the Navy of things like this, I also happen to know that color photographs from a distance are crap when it comes to assesing what damage there is and how it occured. You're supposed to do B/W and high contrast. The pic he uses in no way undermines the story the way he says it does.

Not that this matters to this guy who then goes ot show us a blow up of the inside of the van.


Of course the problem is that only is this pic highly pixelated thus obsuring detail BUT the angle is crappy for the purpose of seeing any damage inside the van.. All the inside we can see would have been right where the passengers would have been. Of course those areas didn't get damaged much. There were human bodies to take the damage instead.

And of course, the lies don't stop there. He then tries to make it out that the injury reports were inconsistent. Since this is already getting soooo long, i will let others look for themselves. I did and no, the injuries aren't that inconsistent from strory to story, nor are the other details. Especially when you consider that:
1. These people were already injured BEFORE the ambulence was hit by the missle.
and 2. Newspaper writers often get different details when writing the same story. Again, it's not a conspiracy. Each is trying to make this story thier own (and avoid charges of plagerism)

But i will add that when the writer said "<a href="">in one story the elderly woman is critical, in another she's unscathed . " Here he was lying again. And rather blatently.

Here the line for the first story... http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34187

And here's the second story... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html
The first story is the IPS news article he cites numerouse times (always wrongly).

In the first story it says.."There was an old man on a stretcher in the ambulance who lost his leg from the bomb," Shaulan said. "And a child with us is now in coma. The third person is critically injured."

The third person, presumably the mother, was criticaly injured.

Ok, so what does the second, supposedly contradictory story from the Guardian say?

"...his mother's body was riddled with shrapnel."

Gee, again is it just me or is being "riddled with shrapnel" sound like a pretty critical injury? If the choad who wrote this or any of the idiots who beleived took this at face value were 'riddled with shrapnel" would they call themselves "unscathed "?

Hell, the mother wasn't even unscathed when she first went into the ambulence before the missle hit.

Well there you go. Another right wing pro-slaughter peice of shit propaganda put to rest. And it took was READING the very sources that this choad provided to "prove" his case and a little common sense.

A little advice to cons which I am sure will be ignored.

Don't just blindly accept stuff because it's what you want to hear.

Oh and I apologize for any typos. You know how the longer the post, the more likley mistakes. Still I think I got most of them."

And that ends my post to the freeper in question. Unfortunatly he accused me of "ignoring evidence' and cited examples of hezzbollah supposedly manipulating the news that had absolutely nothing to do with this story. He even went into complete idiot mode and asked why I wasn't debunking the Media on this. (why I would debunk the media on a story that was true is beyond me...again it must be Con Logic

Pity, he isn't always an idiot. Usually he acts as if he has half a brain. But lately he has let his inner freeper out.

Oh and if anyone else wants to look over this and add anythign of thier own. or instance, i admit I haven't seen a lot of missle strikes and this guy claimed that any missle would have destroyed the ambulence entirely. But I don't think that's true. i mean, what if it was a cluster bomb? Anyone who would know, please share.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. The fast paced media.

You know about the faked pictures, not just the ones from that one sacked photographer, but the others? Do you know of them, as well? The one that made the cover of Time (or NewsWeek) claiming it was a downed Israeli plane, but was actually a tire fire at a garbage dump. There are others.

As for the ambulance story, well, it is still early. I have heard it was staged, but I haven't seen anything that is definitive at this point, for or against it. There have been conflicting stories about the attack, but the same can be said for those saying it was faked. Sometimes, we have to just wait. In their rush to get a story, journalists will make mistakes, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. And like any profession, sometimes there are less than honest "professionals."

The sad truth is if this turns out to be a fake story, there will be very little about it and it will be swept under the rug or out-right excused by people here.

[Wonk]

18. Got a link?

nt

[Behind the Aegis]

20. I have seen things all over the place.

So I don't have one link, per se. However, a google for "ambulance + Israeli + fake" is the search I used after reading an article about it. I will see if I can find on that is not a blog, but an actual article.

[booley]

19. I would like a link as well.

Did the IDF fake photos for thier propaganda as well?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. I will see if I can find some.

So I don't have one link, per se. However, a google for "ambulance + Israeli + fake" is the search I used after reading an article about it. I will see if I can find on that is not a blog, but an actual article.

I haven't heard about IDF faked photos. Link for that?

[booley]

23. If you can find an actual article...

but then there are sooo many so called reporters willing to parrot the right wing that I still be doubtful at this point.

That Israel would attack an ambulence is not unreasonable.

Especially when they made it very clear they have no problem doing so...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1840140,00.html

Israeli aircraft dropped leaflets over Tyre yesterday morning, warning people not to use vehicles south of the Litani river, heightening the city's sense of isolation.
All roads north and south of the port city have been cut by bombing in the last few days and Israeli authorities have refused permission for any ships to dock.
The travel ban had no time limit and mentioned no exceptions, even for ambulances and humanitarian convoys. Addressed to "Lebanese civilians south of the Litani River", it said: "Read this carefully and follow its instructions. The Israeli Defence Forces will escalate their operations and will strike with force against terrorist elements who are using you as human shields and firing rockets from inside your homes against Israel..." All vehicles would be bombed the letter said. It was signed "State of Israel".

That israel did exactly what they said they would do makes a lot more sense then there being some kind of conpsiracy between Hezzbollah, the UN and the Red Cross.

[Cobalt-60]

22. Don't get specific

Israel is well known for killing civilians.
The Wing Nuts make a big deal out of Hizbollah firing from residential areas.
They make excuses for Israel bombing these areas
You could suggest they they just display their ignorance by asserting none were killed when that happened.
Or you could ask them if they were lying then or lying now. Or Both.