"There were NO rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike." (IAF)

[kpete]

Last update - 16:12 01/08/2006
Livni: Qana attack led to turning point in support for Israel
............................

As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

more at:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

[itzamirakul]

1. Time for more lies, twisted logic and double talk from the IDF and

more excuses from the American apologists.

Someone said that it is easier to attack first and apologize later which seems to be the pattern.

Time to blame the residents of Qana for "thinking about launching rockets and thereby drawing the bombing onto themselves so that it is Hezbolla's fault for forcing the Israeli army to aim bombs at civilians..er...oh, what... " I got twisted up in the logic here.

[malaise]

3. Meanwhile Britain has rejected

the European Union's call for an immediate cease fire as Israel warns citizens above the Litani river to move or you know what.

[HongKonger]

86. Not any more

EU foreign ministers call for ‘immediate cessation of hostilities’
01/08/2006 - 16:57:35 European Union foreign ministers today called on Israel and Hezbollah to agree to an “immediate cessation of hostilities” followed by international efforts to get agreement on a sustainable ceasefire.

European Union foreign ministers today called on Israel and Hezbollah to agree to an “immediate cessation of hostilities” followed by international efforts to get agreement on a sustainable ceasefire.

The 25 EU ministers agreed to call for an urgent halt to the fighting, effective immediately.

Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic had earlier rejected a draft EU statement calling for an immediate ceasefire in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants, diplomats said.

SNIP


http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=156794880&p=y5679546x

[malaise]

90. Hard to sort out the

play on words in terms of a change of position from Britain.
Here' s the latest re Lebanon and Gaza from the UN i.e non-spin information.
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressbriefing/brief060801.rm

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You know if this was done on Haifa

by I don't know, the opponent force, you think there would be a review?

Not likely

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. How beneficent!

The IDF takes the time to review their practices after they slaughter your family.

If such reviews actually resulted in the cessation of similar practices in the future, it might even be a boon to humanitarian war-making!

I don't expect retractions from all the apologists claiming that rockets had been fired from the vicinity of that building at the time of the bombing, or anytime near the time of the bombing. Rather, I expect them to say "At least we review when we've done something wrong, that wasn't really wrong anyway! Does Hezbollah review????"

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. That is what democracies do

like or not, personally I want that review not done by the IDF, but by International Lawyers on the ground

that said, your image of a hollywood war is not there. Gulf War one, we bombed an Iraqi command center with precision munitions, it just was not a command center, for it had been moved and it was now serving as a bomb shelter. Them pesky iraqis did not let us know and we bombed it :sarcasm: that is what happens in war. This is not hollywood and when mistakes happen people die.

By the way, the fact that the guerrilla, resistance movement whatever happens to be the approved name of the week, is hiding among civies IS a violation of international law and leads to this... by the way go to the Australian Herald, they do have the photos of Hisbollah among civilians.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. *My* image of a Hollywood war? ROFL

You're the one with a Good Guy-Bad Guy complex, dear, not me. Check the script.

Now that you've predictably deflected attention from this atrocity, what do you think of this new evidence?

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Nadine's new way of telling all Israel critics they are morons.

and talking down to us like poor deluded kids. Pulled it on me all morning yesterday too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. And you still do not know the conventions

by the way again, I am not maklng a moral judgement, you know why? Once the bullets start flying the logic of international law leaves morality out of the equation

[DistressedAmerican]

28. How about shooting up an EMPTY ambulance?

Make you "unconfortable" to answer the question?

Surely you would not condone shooting up an ambulance with nobody but a drive inside would you? A driver like you perhaps?

Legal?

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. no it is not legal

but you have put all the different connotations, see I have been there, you have not...

Now if the ambulance, to make it plainly clear, is NOT marked with a Red Cross (insert any EMS rig in the US) they are not protected,. The other respected symbol is the half moon, but I am sure you knew that too.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. Nor was blowing up this buliding. It was a WAR CRIME.

Then they fed you the firing on a rocket position lie that you carried around all day long yesterday.

When I am lied to, I do not make excuses for the liars. I get pissed off at them. You can do nothing but make more and more excuses for them. Yesterday it was "Hezbollah violated the neutrality of the buliding". Today when you know you bought a lie I was calling them on, you come back with well fog of war! They investigate themselves!

Like that makes the crime or the cover-up acceptable.

When are you going to stop apologizing for war criminals and liars Nadine?

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I want investigators on the ground

not knee jerk emotional response from a board on the world wide web.

[DistressedAmerican]

48. Funny. Yesterday you sounded like you were pretty certian that

rockets had been fired and the strike was retaliatory. That was the base of your argument no? Yesterday you passed plenty of judgement on the folks firing from near civilians.

Why the willingness to assume the facts then. But, not now that they admit it was a lie covering a crime? Now we should all reserve judgement.

Why?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I have seen their tape, their tape

I said yesteray had to be surrendered to an internatioonal body, but you were NOT paying attention.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. No, I heard that part just fine.

I ALSO heard you repeatedly telling me about the rocket launcher (# of rounds, poundage of expolosives involved, etc.) and Hezbollah violating the conventions by firing from near civilians.

You said both quite clearly. Or do you not recall now?

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Yes that is conempated in the conventions

it is called using human shields...

They are known for uring human shields, you know who ELSE used human shields at one time? And they were condemrned for it, wait for it, the Irgun ben Leumi, shocked? That I can acutally see both sides and not just one? If you use a human shield, wehther you are the Irgun, Hamas, the Zapataistas, or Hisbollah (insert any other group you care to here) you are guilty of a war crime. Oh and by the way, I still stand by the fact that if Israel wanted to level Lebanon, they would have by now.

knee jerk response to come.

[AliceWonderland]

89. Hm, I wonder.... is it a knee jerk response

to ask you to please respond to the previous poster's legitimate question? Do you recall expounding on the specific actions of Hezbollah yesterday? Do you not? Has your argument changed to "they are known for uring human shields" now?

Just curious.

And, oh! The ad hominem at the end? About expecting a knee jerk response? Just so you know, that doesn't count as a substitute for an actual argument.

[malaise]

45. The only convention I know

is 'do unto others as you would have them do to you'. How people manage to simultaneously use 'war laws' and religious laws, which are diametrically opposed to war, to justify this madness must be psychologically maddening. I think only atheists practice that law which states thou shall not kill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. The laws of ground conflict and their counterparts for sea

are not there to prevent any war. They are there to minimize the madness. Once you understand that, you also understand they are pretty devoid of morality as it were. They state who is neutral, how you can loose it, and how to treat POWS, but they are not moral. They also evolved from Christian theory of war (in the West). In muslim countries there are similar theories on how to respect the non combatants, why Geneva was accepted. But if you truly look down at all religions, they all share one thing... you are free to kill the non believer... aka the other.

So don't think for a second that these laws have anything to do with moraltiy... whatsoever... what they have to do is how to reduce the horrors.

[malaise]

69. Israel knows nothing

about minimizing madness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. No dear I don't

I know that these things happen in war, even with precision munitions. By the way, been there done that... combat that is. Hell I was shot at in a perfectly marked red cross ambulance... so don't give me this shit. Fact is you have not addressed the fact that I'd rather have International Lawyers looking at this and the fact that one side has chosen, against all conventions of war, to place personnel and assets among civilians, placing saith civilians at risk. If it was the IDF doing it, I'd be criticizing them for the same thing. They are not the good guys, and I am not having a morality argument here, whether they are right or wrong, by the way. I am using the cold logic of International Law as it pertains how you loose neutrality. Unfortunately parking an AA batettery in downtown Kuwait, or downtown Haifa, or downtown Beirut, takes away any neutrality that area had from any military attack, since that battery is of military value.

It is not my fault that most folks have read the conventions in a cursory manner and have no idea how to interpret them. I spent 10 years wearing a Red Cross Uniform, and not the American Red Cross either (One national society that has no clue about them either.) So go tell that to somebody without a clue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. As much as you would like it to

Your experience does not buy you out of your bias here. Trumpet it away. Your deflection still stinks to high heaven. The fact is that there were no rocket batteries in Qana that day, so one wonders just what in fuck the Israelis were bombing. The two fold strategy of "It was their fault and, oh, by the way, shit happens in war" is revealing in only one way: for its monstrous elision. It serves only to absolve the actual perpetrators of the attack, and the policy that put them in motion, of any responsibility whatsoever. You can read the codes til your face turns blue; I really couldn't give a fuck less. Until you finally, finally acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, this bombing, and maybe quite a few others, was ill-conceived and reckless, and that somebody in the IDF, the IAF, and the Israeli government just might bear some responsibility for this massacre, your codes and statutes are nothing but cover for amoral, unethical nonsense. Salud!

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. What bias? Wanting INTERNATIONAL INSTIGATORS

on the ground to check on everybody's claim? MY god, when a murder happens in your town I am sure the murderer is strung up on the first tree, with no investigation done.

Well the charge of war crime has been leveled, guess what? An investigation needs to follow... with rules of evidence and all that. Or are you just going to string up a rope?

Trust me on this one, if the IDF finds out that they made a mistake, the last thing they want is those international investigators on the ground. And if Hisbollah had fighters in the area and rocket launchers, the last they want os those investigators.

By the way, if they get to the ground, be prepared for a very different story to what you are hearing right now... for both sides have their story and rarely does it match the truth on the ground. (Beyond the dead, that is)

[DistressedAmerican]

14. So if your ambulance was shot up carrying NO combatants?

Is that legal?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. No but there are plenty of tales

showing one side forcing themselves on crews to carry them fully armed. You might want to review that. By the way, this is not limited to the middle east. During the 1980s several Salvadoran Red Cross Ambulances were shot up after the army forced them to carry armed combatants. And again nobody made a value judgment on this morally, but the ICRC came hard down on the Salvadoran government, just as recently they did with the Red Crescent, but I am sure you knew this.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. So why condone an attack on a building with NO Non-combatants?

Illegal war crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I am not condonign anything,. but asking for an investitgation

what part of this are you PURPOSELY MISSING?

[endarkenment]

18. Another apologist for war crimes.

Sleep well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. No it is not an apology what part of

I WANT INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS ON THE GROUND REVIEWING THE SITUATION? Benn around the block a couple times and I know that the only way to see if there was a war crime committed is for them pesky lawyers to come in? Very easy for you this was a war crime. I want them pesky lawyers to go down there, weight the evidence and then come back and tell us, this was, or was not a war crime. By the by, if them pesky lawyers find any evidence of military operations by hisbollah in the area, the war crime claim becomes far less easy to sustain. But hey... just talking from the experience of having been under fire and loosing neutrality due to a mistake by one of my kids. What are your credentials, beyond watching the tube? The problem is, when emotions take over, you will make these stupid statements.

And yes, please do answer, if a Katusha landed in Israel, and killed 100 children, would you be making this same noise, I doubt it. If that rocket landed near an artillery battery and the claim was to take that battery out, well the children were put at risk unnecessarily. The conventons have a name for this, human shield.

[LostinVA]

74. Yup

[Dhalgren]

10. At some point a person simply has to say whether or not killing

children and other non-combatants is ok or not. It makes no difference who is doing the killing. If the IDF had gone after Hezbollah, hammer and tongs, there would not be nearly the amount of protests and anger as there is now. What Israel did was to target all Lebanese civilians regardless of their status, situation, or connection to Hezbollah. Israel did this knowing that the Lebanese could not and cannot control or regulate the Hezbollah. If Lebanon were a strong, stable government, with an army that could stop Hezbollah, then maybe Israel's actions could be understood - maybe; but Israel took these actions (and continues it) knowing that the majority of Lebanese were powerless against Hezbollah. That is the problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. What we need is an update in the conventions

to reflect modern conditions... no doubt in my mind. But as long as you have one side basically hiding among civilians... does not matter where in the world, you will have this continue to happen. By the way, in this particular case, their objective, as they bemoan the death of their children, is to kill Jewish kids... that is a celebration for them. It should not be celebrated either way (yes I know sick SOBs that probably were dancing after Qanna), but that is the reality.

Yes the anger is there, the hate is there, and quite frankly by all of us taking sides (I am just pointing out some realities here) we enable this. By our government actively taking sides, we are enabling the conflict. There are no honest brokers in the ME any more.

By the way this is war, and in a war where effectively there are no front lines, non-combatants will be killed. As I mentioned in another post, Maguen David Adom is now responding to calls with at least one member of the rig armed for point defense... which told me instantly, things are far more serious than they are telling us.

[endarkenment]

22. Yes of course we need a special exemption

to allow the state to declare an entire region a free fire zone and all who reside there fair game. Yes we need not put a stop to the butchery, what we need to do is legalize it so that it may continue without us irritating voices of moral outrage having a legal leg to stand on. And while we are there by all means let us abolish the restriction on torture in this brave new world you envision, these 'modern conditions' where a small population dares to resist the power of a mighty state. No we can't have this. We must submit or die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. No you do not understand

what we need is to update the conventions to reflect and forbid the use of human shields in far more stringent terms

What we need is to update the conventions with a new protocol to allow for civilians to evac areas or be evacuated when needed.

You don't know me whatsoever, but the fact that I am not letting emotion enter into the equation comes from having seen FIRST HAND the effects of torture, which also has to be added as something to be forbidden, in clear language.

So stop judging, just because I am not willing to have a knee jerk emotional response, does not mean I condone war crimes. It means that I am willing to examine the evidence, carefully and without passions getting in the way. Sorry, was trained to do this when interviewing victims of war crimes.

[LostinVA]

75. hehehe

[AliceWonderland]

88. Excellent defense!

Those waggish sand niggers, eh? What scoundrels! If only they'd have inquiries, maybe their lives would be worth up to, say, two thirds of an American!

Meh. No longer impressed by these talking points. This is the M.O. for states with obscenely expensive military forces: they use state-sanctioned terrorism but say it was an accident when the inevitable horrors occur. It's a different sort or terror employed by freelancers or poor folks, but acutally winds up killing more innocents. Then there's a "review" or an "investigation."

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

No longer acceptable. Ding! Try again!

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Yeah, Fucking Shocking.

Like I said, the IDF refused to release the actual footage of the attack of the supposed launcher they were targeting. Instead they sent out some video of events that had NOTHING to do with it and America watches CNN and MSNBC talk all day about "video showing a launcher like the one that was attacked in Qana".

How long did it take for everyone to start assuming as the base for discussion that they WERE firing on a rocket.

Fuck I hate these lying scum. War crimes covered by lies. Fuck em.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Recommending so those who believed the lie fucking get a clue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. They won't.

Willful ignorance seems to be a wonderful trait for the pro-Israeli side.

[burythehatchet]

7. I'm confused, a DUer posted the ACTUAL VIDEO

I don't know what to believe anymore,

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. The video was intended to confuse

"Here's a video of a rocket launch from (whisper: a-site-that-sorta-looks-like-the-one-in) Qana taken (whisper: a-week-before) the day of the bombing! AHA!"

Needless to say, any DUer who was then trumpeting this garbage can now stand on their own (whisper: complete-lack-of) credibility.

When credulousness reaches this level, it can only be identified as reckless, amoral ideology.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. One was demanding apologies from the critics IN ADVANCE of the video!

Didn't even wait to be fooled by the bogus, unrelated video. Pronounced it vindication an hour before it even aired. No bias there.

Actually said something like, "they are releaseing the video soon. I suppose everyone will be rushing to apologize then?"

Seems to me like that person is the one that owes a few apologies at this point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Don't hold your breath

The apology will look like this:

"Israel reviews its actions, unlike the cowardly Hezbollah terrorists."

That will be the extent and scope of it. Mass murder is a rhetorical challenge for them, and nothing more.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. But, but, "if the situation was reversed"!!!

:puke:

It isn't reversed. There is one crime on the table here and all attempts to deflect well deserved criticism is dishonest and rather gross. Especially after they all bought the fucking "firing at a rocket launcher" lie and shoved a bunch of BS at us about the war criminal Hezbollah firing rockets from civilians getting their own people killed. Not Israel's fault! No sir! Those damn TERRORISTS!

No excuses. No lies. That is all that has been posted on the Pro-Israel side of this since it started. Pure crap.

[newyorican]

81. lol, I fell down and skinned my knee...

but if I fell up??

You can't make this shit up.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. They THOUGHT They were posting the actual video. They bought the LIE.

As did most of America. The story was pure fabrication from the first word. Backed up with video of other sites and other times passed off as somehow related.

MSNBC reported on it as the actual video. Fox was reporting right off that is was not. Not sure about CNN. But, the lie was proudly told on MSNBC for hours without a single correction. Jack jacobs and David Grange were talking about it for at least a solid 30 minutes, referring to it over and over as "the launcher", "the building targeted", etc. It was outrageous.

People here were calling them on it immediately. Maybe they should read more DU!

[malaise]

50. Do not believe a word coming from the IDF

the Israeli government, Condi Rice or the US government. They are all pathological liars.

[jayfish]

65. These "News" Organizations Are So Detached From The Public.

There needs to be a way for consumers of this "news" to contact them in a timely manner and posit corrections of their coverage. Sort of like an instant ombudsman. They don't know what the hell they are talking about over half the time.

Jay

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. It was a video of the area of operations but not

within 12 hours

[Igel]

73. I watched the Fox

internet feed of the video.

They were very clear: The IDF was claiming they targeted a location that rockets had been fired from; if it was a civilian location, what's the shock--look at this video, not the video of the attack, but video of Hezb firing rockets from a civilian location. The discourse was coherent, and wasn't a claim that they had targeted an actual rocket launcher during launch.

But that required paying attention to what was said, not what was inferred.

This, and other threads, nadin, have been very strange. It's arguing over conclusions and morality and higher-level claims when the core facts of what was said and done aren't established. And where people confuse acts with intent, and law with morality. Too many category errors, circular arguments ...

[LostinVA]

77. I've been holding off, but after this latest round of apologist

spin -- Ignore.

Ugh. Rationalizing war crimes, even now? Ugh.

[Igel]

87. Another proud supporter

of Truthiness, the Way.

Whatever. No loss, if you can't actually read.

Ciao.

[Igel]

68. I don't think so.

There was the assumption it was the actual video, but the IDF was clear that it wasn't--assuming that we have the same video in mind, that is.

A lot of people, and some newscasters, were confused. The point wasn't that they shot at a rocket launcher and hit the building. The point is, if the video was authentic, that Hezbollah had fired rockets from adjacent to civilian buildings; it provided a plausible account for why they hit near the building. In decrying war crimes, what's needed is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew no military target was present, or that the civilian toll outweighed any military justification. (The usual "you need evidence of guilt, not evidence of innocence" canard that people only like when it's their side being accused.)

However, the IDF was also cagey--trained military officers tend to be--in not saying they were targeting a rocket launcher 1 am Sunday morning. They were targeting a place that rockets had been fired from. Tense and verbal aspect are important: they said what they mean. They may have been wrong; one may argue that they should only target rocket launchers, and not their locations.

[LostinVA]

76. No one posted the actual video -- there IS no actual video

[jerry611]

15. If the situation was reversed...

I doubt any of you guys would be outraged...

If say Hezbollah launched a missile and hit an Israeli apartment building killing 60 innocent men and women, there would not be nearly as much world-wide outrage. The arab news networks probably won't bother to report that news at all.

I feel sorry for any innocents that die. But I refuse to buy any of Hezbollah's propaganda.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Thanks for the insult

You're fucking as wrong as can be, about me at least.

But this really is a remarkable phenomenon: "There were no rockets fired from Qana that day..." (cutting the legs out of the IDF apologists justifications, and so what's the response? "Well, if the situation was reversed..." Huh? I mean fucking HUH?

Cheers.

[jerry611]

40. There is an obvious and extreme anti-Israeli bias in the media

The international media hates Israel. When Israeli bus stops are blow to hell, why don't we show the little burned to a crip babies? Why don't we show the streams of blood running down the street? Why don't we show the body parts scattered all over the place?

Yet when the Israelis mistakenly hit a civilian target in Lebanon, the video of the dead bodies is plastered all over the news and the internet.

Don't give me this bullshit that the media and the world would care just as much if the dead civilians were Israelis. Because they don't. I didn't see any media source in that region condemn Palestinian terrorists when they bomb civilian sites in Israel. I didn't see front page stories on any newspaper in the US when terrorists kill Israelis. I don't see all-day news stories of those incidents either like we see with the Qana incident. I don't see the UN passing resolutions of being "shock and disturbed" when Hezbollah or Hamas blows up one of their bombs in an Israeli supermarket.

Israel is being attacked on a daily basis by terrorists that are directly targetting civilians. The leader of Hezbollah says that all jews should be killed and Israel should be pushed into the sea. And you think Israel has no right to defend itself from those people? They have every right to attack Hezbollah.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. You have an extremely selective memory

Suicide bombings in Israel are always big news on the US networks and in the US papers. Yes, front page. Whether that's the case in the rest of the world, I don't know, but it's certainly the case here. I know it suits your ideological agenda and apologetics to pretend that it's not true, but you are, quite frankly, wrong in fact.

[CJCRANE]

83. The media doesn't hate Israel.

The media and world public opinion focuses on whoever is suffering most. When America was hit on 9/11 the vast majority of world opinion was sympathy for Americans. But after "shock and awe" and the killing and torture of tens of thousands of Iraqis that sympathy has vanished and replaced with disgust.

Although Israel has more legitimacy to go after Hezbollah that doesn't excuse collective punishment in the court of world opinion.

[DistressedAmerican]

21. And opposition to the Iraq war Is "loving the terrorists" Too right?

Must suck trying to defend indefensible war crimes.

How does it feel to be on the neocon side of things these days? Confusing?

[endarkenment]

24. Yes of course jerry we would be just like you. nt.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. BULLSHIT

We're outraged every time a terror attack is made. The only difference is that we see Israel as taking part in terror attacks too.

[jerry611]

56. Then give me the UN resolution number that condemned Palestinian attacks

When Palestinian terrorists blow up Israeli civilian targets...I don't remember the UN security council holding an emergency hearing to pass a resolution of being "shocked and disturbed."

If you claim there is no bias in the international community, then you are insane.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. For one, you can search the UN website yourself if you'd like.

http://www.un.org
http://www.un.org/terrorism/

Secondly, if you think that a band of terrorists and a civilized nation that receives more in foreign aid than any other nation in the world should be held to the exact same standards, you are the one that is insane, my friend. One group is fighting for mere survival while the other is pounding them into oblivion, and you expect an equal number of condemnations? Pass whatever you're smoking, please.

[malaise]

52. That has not happened

but the government you support has slaughtered and continues to slaughter inocent Lebanese. Deal with that fact.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. Bullshit....The world is often offended when Israeli's die

its all over the news...

however when israel kills...it is always deemed justifiable.

[still_one]

29. Does it bother out of you that this came from an Israelli paper?

In fact deosn't it demonstrate something?

Perhaps that Israel has a free press?

Perhaps that Israel opens itself up to critisim both inside and outside?

How much of that have you seen with the media here, especially regarding Iraq?

[DistressedAmerican]

33. Well by all means that excuses the overt lies from the government and

the crimes they were covering up!

They have a free press! Look at democracy in action! It is just fine to blow up folks with no free press! Fuck em.

Deal with the issues. The government lied through their teeth. Then released video that had NOTHING to do with the events all in an effort to cover up a war crime. Doesn't that make you just a little mad? A little critical? Not at all?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. I think the poster was more slamming the U.S., honestly.

And the fact that we can't have an honest discussion about the issue here because our media fails to report important facts like these.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Praise be to God!

Like Israel's supposed to get praise points for admitting the truth after days of outrageous lies.

Oh, and Hezbollah wouldn't perform a similar review! That's that, then. Ho hum. I mean, are you kidding me?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Haaretz has continually been one of the best papers in the world.

By far the most balanced, honest, and fair news source I've come across.

[Minstrel Boy]

51. Do dead babies bother you? n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

30. It's appalling and dismaying,

the logical fallacies on display in this thread by the partisans who either excuse every horror committed by their side or are unable to see them.

[LostinVA]

78. Bingo n/t

[bigtree]

36. amazing

but predictable. It follows the pattern of most of the other deadly strikes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Including ours in '81 of course

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. I wonder if the IAF is anti-Semitic.

:sarcasm:

[oc2002]

84. lol., that made me laugh.

nt.

[soothsayer]

58. Mebbe Israel is just hoping to draw Syria or Iran directly into the

mix? Just provoke them? Heck, I dunno. I wish the whole world would quit fighting all the time.

[MadHound]

62. I think that is exactly what Israel, and Bushco want

After all, if you've read your PNAC, you would see that the Bushco blueprint for ME hegemony is to invade Iraq, then go after Syria and Iran. Now given that in the past Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges with Hezbollah, why all the sudden did they unleash the dogs of war? And given that Israel has been planning this move for almost a year, and consulting Bushco on it, well, it is just something that makes you go "Hmmm".

[Minstrel Boy]

63. IDF officials say that's what the US wants

"Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292032964&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[leesa]

66. IDF telling the truth? WTF? As most suspected it was pure aggression

against civilians once again by Israel.

[Marie26]

72. At least they're admitting it now

They're not even pretending anymore that Hiz. fighters ran into the building. But I suspect the IDF will admit that far before the US media does. We probably won't see a breath of this report on CNN - but we'll still see that stupid rocket launcher video over & over.

[Little Star]

70. Israel has become exactly what they hated.

There is no excuse for their barbaric over the top aggression! War solves nothing.
Make peace!!!!

[newspeak]

79. so, very sad that individual's like Rabin

who want peace and some equitable solution are silenced by their own wild eyed zealots--and, look who gains power? There are Israelis who wish for peace, and some in the military who refused to strong arm the Palestinians, but that is not who is in charge today!!!! They are as bad as our greed head, sociopath administration!!!! For every actions, comes an equal or greater reaction. This violence solves nothing--and, maybe that's the way some seem to want it. This aggression was one of my worse fears-that Israel would aid in the PNAC agenda for our Strangelovian administration. Y'all can argue all you want, but this is going according to the loco's PNAC agenda. If Israel had such a regard for the civilians of Lebanon, then why do they deem it necessary to bomb infrastructures that civilians need to survive (water, power, etc...)? And, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me, why is it necessary for Israel to spy on its' great ally, the US?

And, all who shout "anti-semite," I'll agree with the above poster--semitic people include arabs, persians, Hebrews (from the ME) etc.... I have Jewish friends and their families came from Europe--most Jewish people came from Eastern Europe, not the Middle East.

[Minstrel Boy]

80. it was more sinister than simply one wild-eyed zealot

Rabin's convicted lone gunman, Yigal Amir, had close ties to the extremist nationalist organization Eyal, and was groomed by its founder Avishai Raviv to kill Rabin. The Israeli paper Maariv reported November 24, 1995 that "according to Sarah Eliash, a schooteacher working at the Shomron Girls Seminary, some of her pupils heard Raviv encourage Amir to murder Rabin. Raviv told Amir, "Show us you're a man. Do it."

Uri Dan and Dennis Eisenberg elaborated on the girls testimony writing for The Jerusalem Post, which Barry Chamish quotes in his book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin?

Sarah Eliash had already appeared voluntarily before the commission and related how her pupils had run to see her on the night of the killing. In tears they said they knew Yigal Amir. They had met both Amir and Avishai Raviv.... 'We used to see Raviv and Amir on Saturdays during last summer,' they related.

These gatherings were arranged by Yigal... Raviv was real macho. He kept saying to Yigal: 'You keep talking about killing Rabin. Why don't you do it? Are you frightened? You say you want to do it. Show us that you're a man. Show us what you're made of.

Raviv, the founder of the extremist Eyal and the bug in the ear of Rabin's assassin, was also a Shabak (or "Shin Bet," Israel's covert internal security) agent, codenamed "Champagne" for, writes Chamish, "the bubbles of incitement he raised"?

From Marriv:

Amnon Abramovitch dropped a bombshell last night, announcing that Avishai Raviv was a Shabak agent codenamed "Champagne." Now we ask the question, why didn't he report Yigal Amir's plan to murder Rabin to his superiors? In conversations with security officials, the following picture emerged. Eyal was under close supervision of the Shabak. They supported it monetarily for the past two years. The Shabak knew the names of all Eyal members, including Yigal Amir.

[newspeak]

82. thanks Minstrel Boy

for the info--it makes it more scary of those who have gained power in Israel, today!!!!

[BrightKnight]

85. A BBC report showed a damaged rocket there.

A Hezbollah flag was flying in the town.
There were automatic weapons and grenades.
There was video of a damaged rocket.
There was every indication that there was very fierce fighting in the town.
One young man that was interviewed was glowing and grinning when he talked about fighting Israel.

The report was critical of Israel. The news crew were helping trapped and abandoned elderly people left behind.

Hezbollah chose to fight there because it offered tactical advantage. Hezbollah is probably celebrating the civilian casualties. This is not all about Israel.

[DistressedAmerican]

91. Tell it to the Israeli Airforce who dropped the bombs.

MSNBC spent hours showing footage that had nothing to do with the incident whioe calling it the actual footage. Maybe BBC had the same issue.

Now the Israeli airforce admits that there was no rocket launcher there that day and the first lie has already take hold so deep that some will never admit the very facts admitted (ever so quitely) by the people who did the killing.

That my friend is how the "big lie" works. Does not have to be true to be believed, just repeated often.

Do not be duped by lies.