Hezbollywood. Was the Qana collapse staged?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
More information from Haaretz on the Qana attack:

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.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese Red Cross workers reported on Monday that 28 bodies, 19 of them children, were removed from the rubble.

The count is lower than the some 60 bodies reported by news agencies, quoting Lebanese security officials. Survivors say 60 people were in the building at the time of the strike.


So while the death toll is lower than initially reported, the IDF is now admitting that there were no rockets launched from Qana on the day of the strike.




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
So while the death toll is lower than initially reported, the IDF is now admitting that there were no rockets launched from Qana on the day of the strike.


And this means...what?

It was ok because rockets were fired before?...after? ...or...there was no threat that particular day? (given hours, only hours, of time)…give it a rest…please…blind is a cognitive decision as much as it is an attitude…minus actual physical prognosis.

mg



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

And this means...what?

It was ok because rockets were fired before?...after? ...or...there was no threat that particular day? (given hours, only hours, of time)…


That apparently, there were no rocket launchers there at the time for the Israelis to hit. That the Israelis were aware that the target they were hitting was no longer an active launching location.
Giving lie to Israeli claims that they were trying to take out rocket launchers.

What the hell is the point of hitting a spot where rocket launchers might have been a day ago?
Do they think Hezbbollah is too stupid to move the things around?


give it a rest…please…blind is a cognitive decision as much as it is an attitude…minus actual physical prognosis.


I could easily say the same to you.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
apparently, there were no rocket launchers there at the time for the Israelis to hit.


Well, we could fire back with a now famous quote such as this one another member stated when I quoted an Israeli news source earlier. Apparently the article wasn't legit because it came from Israel.


Originally posted by xmotex
Only if you believe every single Israeli and pro-Israeli claim as gospel truth, and see everyone else as liars.
Which, if you're a true believer, you probably do.

The rest of us are a little more skeptical...


How do we know that this article you quoted from Haaretz (an Israeli publication and obviously pro-Israel) isn't just more dis-info? What's the criteria here? Are Israeli sources only credible if they are derogatory to Israel's cause? You pick and choose your sources as though you believe this to be true. I guess we could also apply this quote to your logic.


Originally posted by xmotex
The burden of proof is on the people making the claims, after being on this site for a while you ought to know that.


I think I'm beginning to see how this works. Since you have the burden of proof it would be good of you to prove that Israel knew the rockets were no longer at the building. And don't be quoting from those obviously bios Israeli news sources. We've seen other members point out how that works.


Wait a min! That was you who made all those claims and yet here you are quoting an Israeli news source that you earlier dismissed as bunk. I know what this is. You're obviously an Israeli dis-info agent.


EDIT: I'm not really trying to pick on you specifically but I find it funny how anti-Israeli bios clouds some people's thoughts. What happened to open discussion?

[edit on 1-8-2006 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   


What is the point of hitting a spot where rocket launchers might have been a day ago?


Do I recall that the strike was performed at approx. 1 AM?

If so a day ago was actually only an hour?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I was curious about that too, however it seems likely to me they meant within the previous day. Otherwise it's a rather odd way of putting it. It's Haaretz not Al Jazeera we're talking about here.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
That apparently, there were no rocket launchers there at the time for the Israelis to hit.


And you know this how?...the same reports?...same fogged info?...again…give it a rest aka: (break/rest)...propaganda flows easier and quicker than facts….especially when the belief system is online.


Originally posted by xmotex
Giving lie to Israeli claims that they were trying to take out rocket launchers.

No different to the claim of unverifiable women and children dead…c'mon!


Originally posted by xmotex
What the hell is the point of hitting a spot where rocket launchers might have been a day ago?
Do they think Hezbbollah is too stupid to move the things around?

You just made the greater point…"MO"...and not to your current position…


Originally posted by xmotex
I could easily say the same to you.


Please do!…but use the same 'absolute' standards…


mg



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
XMOTEX

Preparing a launch position for an unguided rocket takes time, 30mins? (artillery men around who know better?), 120mm mortar takes 10 mins and it has better sights so the firing position for a katusha needs to be aligned perfectly in order to target the weapon with any accuracy.
It would be foolish for Hezbollah to dug new postions for every salvo, since the troops would be exposed in the open for that time. So destroying old emplacements is a sound tactic to slow down the rocket fire.
Allso transporting the rockets for long distances with IAF prowling in the sky makes no sense, so the rockets could have been stashed close by. Either in that building causing the collapse or IDF just quessed the wrong target (You can't allways base all decisions on facts, instinct still plays a big role in warfighting)



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
XMOTEX

Preparing a launch position for an unguided rocket takes time.



Preparing a launch position doesn't take 30 minutes, especially not with these improvised launching units:



While I agree that the process of accurate aiming needs some time, I'd say a minute of 10.



[edit on 2-8-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Hezbollywood, eh? They might have some box office competition from Pallywood.

Personally I think that there are no morally superior or innocent parties in this whole FUBAR situation. They all use propaganda and lies, they all proclaim their innocence, and they all think that their enemies are subhuman scum. Just some idiots have bigger guns than other idiots I guess. All's fair in love and Middle East conflict, eh? :shk:

Don't tarry too long, J.C., coz we can't do anything but *&%# it all up to hell without ya.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

How do we know that this article you quoted from Haaretz (an Israeli publication and obviously pro-Israel) isn't just more dis-info? What's the criteria here? Are Israeli sources only credible if they are derogatory to Israel's cause? You pick and choose your sources as though you believe this to be true. I guess we could also apply this quote to your logic.


So it's Israeli disinfo, designed to make Israel look bad?
You're really stretching here



I think I'm beginning to see how this works. Since you have the burden of proof it would be good of you to prove that Israel knew the rockets were no longer at the building.


The "claim" in question is that this was a building from which rockets were being launched, and that that's why it was targeted. Don't play cute word games.


And don't be quoting from those obviously bios Israeli news sources. We've seen other members point out how that works.

Wait a min! That was you who made all those claims and yet here you are quoting an Israeli news source that you earlier dismissed as bunk. I know what this is. You're obviously an Israeli dis-info agent.



Cute.
Haaretz is a widely respected Israeli newspaper, not some joker's blog.
And it's bias not bios already.
I have yet to write any capsule biographies here...



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   


And you know this how?...the same reports?...same fogged info?...again…give it a rest aka: (break/rest)...propaganda flows easier and quicker than facts….especially when the belief system is online.


The unintentional irony is thick here...

Look, where are the phantom rockets we're supposed to believe caused this attack? No less a source than the IDF is now indicating there had been no recent launches from this location. But of course, the freaking IDF must be lying in order to make the IDF look bad



No different to the claim of unverifiable women and children dead…c'mon!


Unverifiable?!?!?
What do you consider unverifiable? You find the Red Cross an unreliable source?
The dozens of photos of the bodies were all faked? Apparently all the media present were in on the scam?

So the bodies we saw weren't really there, but the rockets we didn't see really were?


You just made the greater point…"MO"...and not to your current position…


What the hell is this sentence even supposed to mean?
Instead of trying to be clever and elliptical, come out and say what you mean to say.


Please do!…but use the same 'absolute' standards…


"Absolute standards?"
Which are those, the standards where all statements that reflect badly on Israel are automatically absolutely false, and all statements (however poorly supported) that reflect positively on Israel are automatically absolutely true?

The "retreat into haughty arrogance" technique only works if you have the arguments to back yourself up. So far, I'm seeing a lot of attitude, and little else.

northwolf,
These rockets weigh a max of 70kg, and as you can see clearly in Mdv2's pic, are highly portable and easily readied for launch. As you can see, the high tech launching facility contributes to their amazing accuracy



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Cox and Forkum have something to say about Qana...





Id say thats about right...

[edit on 2-8-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Ah yes - the Wet Dream of all Muslim-Haters this is ey?

You Proud and Happy right now, aren't ya?

And if we roll back a little, and remember the comments made by Israeli politicians:

"All Terrorists Are Muslim" -

Well that sure explains the Massacres commited in Lebanon.

Hey - what's up with those "Kidnapped" Soldiers?

Hmmmmmmm, no word about them anymore ey?

Private Gilad anyone?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Good old Weapons of Mass Deception;

Just like the bushies and the Occupation of Iraq;

First - WMD's in Iraq

Second - Al-Qaeda in bed with Saddam

Third - Let's give Iraqi People Democracy!

I see that Israel follows the footsteps of their closest buddies.

Ah well.

Who cares anyway.

Life is Cheap these days - especially if you are Born a Muslim.

And let's not forget Jewish Rabbi's saying:

"One Million Arabs are not worth one jewish fingernail."

I see that now very clearly.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Current world conflicts involve Muslims fighting in many different theaters against differing religions, not just Christianity. Serbian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Animists, Hindi, Macedonian Orthodox Christians, Jews, Russian Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and Protestants all have waging conflicts in some form including Muslims (not mentioning Muslim various sects involved with constant infighting).




Originally posted by xmotex
The unintentional irony is thick here...

oh!...agreed!


Originally posted by xmotex
Look, where are the phantom rockets we're supposed to believe caused this attack?


Phantom…how?


Originally posted by xmotex
No less a source than the IDF is now indicating there had been no recent launches from this location. But of course, the freaking IDF must be lying in order to make the IDF look bad


What creditable report are you alluring to refer to?


Originally posted by xmotex
What do you consider unverifiable?


Err…Uhh…reports from the hinterland?


Originally posted by xmotex
You find the Red Cross an unreliable source?


Provide a Red Cross report…this may be a start…yes?


Originally posted by xmotex
The dozens of photos of the bodies were all faked? Apparently all the media present were in on the scam?


Through many threads on this site…there exists evidence to suggest this…do you not agree?...or can I find your argument against within as well?



Originally posted by xmotex
So the bodies we saw weren't really there, but the rockets we didn't see really were?


Refer to the afore mentioned.


Originally posted by xmotex
What the hell is this sentence even supposed to mean?
first-off, generally buying into unsubstanciated motive “hook-line-and-sinker”... how about that for a start…of course discuss...please?


Originally posted by xmotex
"Absolute standards?"
Which are those, the standards where all statements that reflect badly on Israel are automatically absolutely false, and all statements (however poorly supported) that reflect positively on Israel are automatically absolutely true?


Compare the two (exclusively)…leave out bias and explain YOUR position…for once…good luck…


mg



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Ah yes - the Wet Dream of all Muslim-Haters this is ey?


Muslim haters?....

Like....people that have current (forget historical) martial conflicts with the "Muslims"?...but religion is not an issue...right?

Umm...like Mulslim conflicts with...

Simply not the obvious...traditional Christianity but the...Serbian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Animists, Hindi, Macedonian Orthodox Christians, Jews, Russian Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and Protestants....

....not mentioning Muslim various sects involved with constant infighting, of course polical terrorist agenda's, laying aside gender roles.... C'mon!

At one point, when I have time I'll pull it up 20+ of 22-24 conflicts world wide involded "Islam"....

Yeah..."Islamic peace"!...

...ROLMFAO!


mg



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Reuters has fired photojournalist Adnan Hajj for knowingly (and horribly) manipulating photos that depict multiple plumes of smoke in Beirut. The photos were edited so poorly it had several people protesting about why Reuters would publish obviously doctored photos.



The Sports Shooter web forum
"I'll second the cloned smoke...but it looks so obvious that I don't know how the photographer could have gotten away with it,"




Left & Right
"The photo has been doctored, quite badly."




Ace of Spades blog
"Even I can see the very suspicious "clonings" of picture elements here. And I'm an idiot."




Little Green Footballs blog
"This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image."


Obviously the photojournalist wanted the damage in Beirut to appear more widespread than it was. In the doctored photo we see Beirut barely visible with multiple plumes of thick black smoke. In the acutal photo we can see that although there is quite a bit of smoke, it all comes from one source. This is an attempt to get the viewer to believe that Israel is carpet-bombing Lebanon. We see in the actual photo that in fact it was a precision strike on one location. This is propaganda at it's best.

Now for the tie-in. Adnan Hajj, the photographer just fired, is also the photographer who submitted most of the photos to Reuters from the Qana disaster.


Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.

"A photographer who would blatantly falsify an entire 'news' image would certainly not be above posing and staging photographs of rescue workers," Johnson concluded.


Now we have to ask ourselves, do the photos from Qana depict what's actually happening there? Could these photos have been staged as a propaganda to show Israel in a bad light and bring sympathy to Hezbollah's cause? Now all the questions I've raised before become even more alarming. There's no doubt that this photographer was willing to stage photo-ops. We have proof that he was altering photos. It's not a wild guess that he was assisting Hezbollah in Qana as well.

Hezbollywood scene 21, take 2.

"All right! Que the morners and bring the bodies over to this area so you can see the rubble behind them. Add some soot to that guys face. and....ACTION!!

[edit on 7-8-2006 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Lebanese PM now says 1 killed in strike

The Lebanese prime minister said one person was killed in an Israeli air raid Monday in the southern border village of Houla, lowering the death toll from 40. Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said at a news conference that he had based the initial tally on unspecified information that he had received.

He offered no other explanation for the error. He had announced that 40 were killed in the attack during an emotional address during opening remarks at a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers.It turned out that one person was killed.


Sorry for the long Ex Source. Seems strange to make a impassioned, crying speech to the Arab League when you are not certain of the facts surrounding them. The speech did what it was intended to do, paint Israel in the worst light possible to the Arab world. Wonder where he got his intial "unspecified information" from?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by pavil]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I've said this in other threads and I'll say it here. You can't believe anything that you hear from Lebanon. The Lebanese, Hezbolla, Israel and the media are all corrupting any information that gets out. I don't even trust the Red Cross this time.

I was in Lebanon in 1983. I have seen an anti-aircraft gun put on top of an apartment building and have watched the residents of that building line-up at the windows as human shields to protect that gun. I don't know if these people did it voluntarily or if they were forced to be there. Between this and other things that I have seen and heard I have to wonder if there is such a thing as an innocent civilian in Lebanon.

Funny thing is that I haven't heard anything about the Israeli soldiers that were taken in the last few days. Since this is supposedly what started this and was Israel's justification for attacking Lebanon in the first place I find this strange.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Funny thing is that I haven't heard anything about the Israeli soldiers that were taken in the last few days. Since this is supposedly what started this and was Israel's justification for attacking Lebanon in the first place I find this strange.


Thanks for the insights into Lebanon from 1st hand experience.

I don't find it entirely strange that we haven't heard anything about the captured soldiers. Hezbollah is a very well disciplined and armed force at it's core group. Once the two soldiers were captured I am sure they were moved someplace very secret and secure and very few people even know where they are even in Hezbollah. I very much doubt they will be found without Hezbollah releasing them.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join