There have been many "neutral" articles reporting "facts" about this, and even some video footage. Blogger "Zombie" discusses the incident on his blog article, The Red Cross Ambulance Incident:
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.
But Zombie analyzes the information carefully and comes up with a reasoned explanation that doesn't start from an anti-Israel ideology. He writes, "But there's one problem: It never happened..."
Zombie carefully builds his argument based on photographs--not just two or three, but many that apparently have not been published in the Western Media. He examines the possible arguments made that support the "factual" event above, and lists the possible claims as follows:
Claim #1: An Israeli missile pierced the exact center of the red cross on the roof of the ambulance in the first photo above.
Claim #2: The attack happened on July 23.
Claim #3: There was a huge explosion inside the ambulance depicted in the third photo above.
Claim #4: There was an intense fire inside that same ambulance.
Claim #5: A man lying on a gurney inside the ambulance had his leg sheared off by the missile.
Claim #6: You're analyzing the wrong ambulance, you idiot.
Claim #7: The ambulance driver who reported the incident was injured in the attack.
Claim #8: The Lebanese ambulance drivers are politically neutral and would have no motivation to lie.
Even I, an admitted non-expert in munitions, can tell immediately from the photographs that #1, 3 and 4 are bogus claims. And if #6 is false, as Zombie points out, then it reinforces the analysis of 1, 3 and 4 being false claims.
Claim #8 is easily debunked, too, as long as you put aside your ideology and not automatically believe that Israel lies, and other people involved (Lebanon, Syria, Hezbollah, etc.) never do.
Zombie goes on to carefully analyze the entire set of arguments and reaches the following conclusion, which is the one supported by the actual facts as seen in the photographs. If the photographs do NOT represent what happened, then 1) The event happened, but these are not photographs of it (which is not the claim made), or 2) The event never happened, and these photographs are anti-Israel propaganda.
The mainstream press (in its ideological rush to condemn Israel and stop the killing of helpless Lebanese children) seems to have not done its homework, relying entirely on what certain people say, rather than actual analysis.
The "fauxtography" of Adnan Haj is strike one, the use of Hebollywood video propagan....err, I mean productions is strike two, and here is strike three. So, why should we listen to "professional" journalists when they are less interested in fact than in artistic interpretation in search of "truth?"
Apparently, the outcry over things like this helped Hezbollah to not have to defend itself from the evil Israeli invaders. Too bad it was largely based on deliberate mispresentations (i.e. lies).
No comments:
Post a Comment