Why do people hate Jews?

[Ziggurat]

They have the resources to consult experts.

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?

The pockmarks were possibly due to fragments of the missile as it hit the vehicle and went through it into the concrete.

Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.

Unless it exploded underground and the concrete masked the explosion since it was too deep. In which case any remains would be lost.

But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground? And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that. If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle? A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

 

[Dumbledore]

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?



Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.



But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground? And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that. If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle? A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

Good luck arguing with him!!!

 

[JJR]

I certainly hope someone with medical expertise has you under close observation.

It's simple, man. If you believe that Jews need to go, then it's a medical situation. Nazis always said, "You are sick" referring to any White person thought to be displaying, "Jewish thinking" and they always said that Jews are sick . . . that they are walking germs.

Since Hitler stole the idea of vascectomizing the mentally feeble from America . . . hey, he should have gone further and vascectomized 6 million Jews. Then he wouldn't be thought of as a murderer . . . just a ball snipper.

He, uh . .. actually did sterilize retards. They even had a feeble minded man that he sterilized at Neuremburg (sp?). The lawyer defending the Nazis proved that the man who was sterilized was, in fact, retarded . . . and that his condition was genetic. He came from a very large family in Germany . . . and they were all retarded. All of their children would have been retarded, too.

Homosexuality is also a good method of reducing the population . . . weither it be the population of Jewish people or the population in general. The side effect is Socialism (Gays tend to be a little sensitive and Socialist) . . . which is okay because we're talking about National Socialism . . . Nazis.

This is what I mean by, "Pleasuring Jews to death" . . . this is the method and it destroys violent anti-Semitism. It makes pressuring Jews into the program fun (as any bisexual young punk rock girl can tell you when attempting to seduce Natile Portman) . . . and it makes the clumbsy over-enthusiastic look silly . .. all you have to say is, "Okay, keep your shirt on, babe."

The world can go through it's Nazi phase and never harm a Jew . . . and perhaps learn something about genetics. If Jews are genetically inferior and extremely prone to causing Socialism which destroys a Civilization by weakening it (like worms boring holes in a healthy apple) . . . then sex is the answer. Lots and lots of sex.

It's a good thing that, unlike what the Nazis said . . . many Jewish women are hot. And young men.

If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

Nazis were unprofessional - but it was not their unprofessionalism that caused the war. It was their natural distrust of America which was caused by the mind-numbing conservatism of the time. Hitler had no idea that America was ready to play and just couldn't trust us. Those were desperate times, and it is up to us to make sure none of it ever happenes again.

Never again.

 

[Gurdur]

....If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

 

[JJR]

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Sex isn't scary . . . unless you belive in eternal damnation.

M'kay??

 

[Loss Leader]

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Luckily, the marijuana that makes him incoherent also makes him ineffectual.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Look. My great^nth grandparents were Amalekites (or possibly Ammonites, or even Goniatites, we lost the records in the war). One day, there they were, herding the goats, sacrificing to the Lord of the Zippers, when this mob of unwashed sand-dancers roll in from the desert and march round the walls, blowing trumpets. Next thing, the walls fall down. Total collapse in the building industry. Who gets all the reconstruction contracts? You guessed it. Hot line to the Man at the Top , apparently.
Hey- they eat wierd food, put towels on their heads, talk to god, get their legal code from bushes, won't work on weekends and won't marry Ishtarites.

What's not to like?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?

Proof?

Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground?

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle?

Incompetence?

A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

 

[Mycroft]

Proof?

You're asking him to prove a negative. If there is an assertion that the IRC consulted experts, then whoever made that assertion should provide the evidence. Until then, I am unaware of any time when the IRC claimed to have consulted experts.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

Except that they do. Just like forensic experts can analyze blood spatter to gather evidence on how a crime took place, so also would it be possible to analyze molten metal spatter to learn much about what kind of explosion took place. Further, molten metal can be subject to analysis to determine what types of metal it is, where it was smelted, etc.

Further, bomb residue isn't necessarily molten. Bomb fragments can tell an expert much about what kind of weapon it was, where it was manufactured, etc.

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

This makes no sense.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

Lack of evidence is always good reason to be skeptical.

Incompetence?

You can't have it all ways to answer every objection. Did the missile supposedly explode above the vehicle? Or did it penetrate the vehicle to create the hole in the ground? These are mutually exclusive options.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

Except it's not clear at all except to someone who presupposes the conclusions you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mycroft already addressed a number of these points, but I'll add my $0.02.

Proof?

YOU are the one who thinks that it's significant that HRW could have paid for professional experts. But why is that relevant if they didn't? Why is the standard what they could have done, and not what we know they did? That blog may not have been able to pay experts, but they could have got experts to consult for free (it happened in the Dan Rather fake memo case). But I'm not alleging that, and I'm not arguing from authority. The burden is on YOU to show any evidence that they did consult experts. And suppose they did, what then? Since they make no mention of experts, we cannot evaluate what part, if any, of their analysis derives from those experts. CBS claimed to have passed the fake memos by experts, and in one sense they did. But they did it piecemeal, and the feedback they got from those experts didn't actually confirm the authenticity of the memo (not surprising since it was a crude forgery). In summary: 1) you are the one whose argument depends on HRW having consulted experts, not me, 2) there is no evidence that experts were consulted, and no details of any consultation provided, and 3) without details of the results of that consultation, it's of no use in evaluating the reliability of their report even if it happened.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

Boy, did you miss my point. You said that maybe the hole in the floor was only caused by a fragment. Well, the hole in the floor would then be very much a trace of that fragment, wouldn't it? But why is it the only such trace? Are you seriously trying to argue that a missile exploded, and only left one fragment from that explosion? Furthermore, the fragment may be hard to identify as anything in particular because of deformation from the explosion, but that alone would be an important indication of how it originated, and such fragments should still be locatable. But none were. Why not? The only answer you and HRW can come up with is to bounce around between conflicting theories (it's both a missile which produces no shrapnel when it explodes and it's a deep-penetrating unexploded munition).

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

Again, you missed the point completely. My question was, what evidence is there that the missile exploded underground, and isn't sitting there unexploded, possibly ready to kill someone randomly? A hole in the ground for the entry point wouldn't indicate that the missile exploded. And if it exploded underground, how could you tell there weren't any remains unless you dug it up?

Lastly, and maybe even most importantly, what evidence is there that there even is a hole leading underground? None. The photos only indicate a divot in the pavement, with a shadow covering what might either be a hole that goes deeper, or could simply be the bottom of the divot in plain sight but invisible in the photo because of that shadow.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

Uh, no. There ARE photos of it: the photo of the street showing the alleged impact point. If the munition went off underground, then the shockwave from the explosion should travel up through the pavement and cause spalling on the opposite side which, in the case of an exlposion under the pavement, would mean on the top side of the pavement. But there is no such spalling, and we know that because we have photos of the top of the pavement. Therefore, there's no evidence that anything exploded underground. So if there were a missile or other munition which penetrated deep into the ground at that spot, the bomb squad had better dig it out to at least make sure it's not still dangerous. And at that point, they'll have some good physical evidence of what Israel supposedly attacked those ambulances with. But of course, that won't happen. Why? Because no munition penetrated the ground. Hell, we don't even know that it was caused by any munition at all, penetrating or not. That hole in the ground could have easily been caused by a pickaxe.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

Clearly they do? Why is it clear? Oh yeah, because you've already assumed an answer, and so you'll invent the existence of things in order to confirm what you already believe. Need to convince yourself Israel deliberately targets ambulances? Easy! Just invent sooper-sekret Joo weapons.

 

[gtc]

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Gurdur, as you read that far through his post, you DO worry me.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You're asking him to prove a negative. If there is an assertion that the IRC consulted experts, then whoever made that assertion should provide the evidence. Until then, I am unaware of any time when the IRC claimed to have consulted experts.

He's claiming they "did not" consult experts.

Except that they do. Just like forensic experts can analyze blood spatter to gather evidence on how a crime took place, so also would it be possible to analyze molten metal spatter to learn much about what kind of explosion took place. Further, molten metal can be subject to analysis to determine what types of metal it is, where it was smelted, etc.

If there are professional crime scene investigators there to examine the entire area and scan to see if such pieces of metal are there, however to the naked eye and the normal person, it is unlikely they could identify such pieces let alone separate them from the normal pieces of metal in the street in Lebanon or the bits of metal from the ambulance.

This makes no sense.

The hole in the concrete leading underground is evidence the missile went underground.

Lack of evidence is always good reason to be skeptical.

He's not being "skeptical". He's making positive assertions based on the lack of evidence. Based on the lack of pictures of the damage from the detonation underground he's concluding it didn't happen.

You can't have it all ways to answer every objection. Did the missile supposedly explode above the vehicle? Or did it penetrate the vehicle to create the hole in the ground? These are mutually exclusive options.

It could have started to break apart above the vehicle where molten pieces of metal from the heat of the missile caused the potholes but the bulk of the missile itself penetrated the ambulance and into the ground.

Except it's not clear at all except to someone who presupposes the conclusions you are.

I'm just making a logical conclusion based on what I've seen. There is no evidence it was faked and based on the pictures and evidence that I have seen, It looks legitimate. The arguments that it was fake are also easily rebuked.

YOU are the one who thinks that it's significant that HRW could have paid for professional experts. But why is that relevant if they didn't? Why is the standard what they could have done, and not what we know they did? That blog may not have been able to pay experts, but they could have got experts to consult for free (it happened in the Dan Rather fake memo case). But I'm not alleging that, and I'm not arguing from authority. The burden is on YOU to show any evidence that they did consult experts. And suppose they did, what then? Since they make no mention of experts, we cannot evaluate what part, if any, of their analysis derives from those experts. CBS claimed to have passed the fake memos by experts, and in one sense they did. But they did it piecemeal, and the feedback they got from those experts didn't actually confirm the authenticity of the memo (not surprising since it was a crude forgery). In summary: 1) you are the one whose argument depends on HRW having consulted experts, not me, 2) there is no evidence that experts were consulted, and no details of any consultation provided, and 3) without details of the results of that consultation, it's of no use in evaluating the reliability of their report even if it happened.

I'm simply saying the HRW has more resources to consult experts and it is more likely they did so than some random Blogger doing so. Since it's more likely then that lends credence to their reputability. Generally this would be an appeal to authority, except there is nothing else to appeal to since the arguments themselves proposed by the blogger are bunk.

Boy, did you miss my point. You said that maybe the hole in the floor was only caused by a fragment. Well, the hole in the floor would then be very much a trace of that fragment, wouldn't it? But why is it the only such trace? Are you seriously trying to argue that a missile exploded, and only left one fragment from that explosion? Furthermore, the fragment may be hard to identify as anything in particular because of deformation from the explosion, but that alone would be an important indication of how it originated, and such fragments should still be locatable. But none were. Why not? The only answer you and HRW can come up with is to bounce around between conflicting theories (it's both a missile which produces no shrapnel when it explodes and it's a deep-penetrating unexploded munition).

No. The hole in the ambulance would have been caused by the missile itself and the potholes in the roof by small fragments of metal breaking off of the missile as it hit the ambulance.

Again, you missed the point completely. My question was, what evidence is there that the missile exploded underground, and isn't sitting there unexploded, possibly ready to kill someone randomly? A hole in the ground for the entry point wouldn't indicate that the missile exploded. And if it exploded underground, how could you tell there weren't any remains unless you dug it up?

It might not have exploded underground. Perhaps the Lebanese are just too incompetent to go get it.

Lastly, and maybe even most importantly, what evidence is there that there even is a hole leading underground? None. The photos only indicate a divot in the pavement, with a shadow covering what might either be a hole that goes deeper, or could simply be the bottom of the divot in plain sight but invisible in the photo because of that shadow.

The fact that nothing remains of the missile itself is proof that it's a hole not a shallow divot.

Uh, no. There ARE photos of it: the photo of the street showing the alleged impact point. If the munition went off underground, then the shockwave from the explosion should travel up through the pavement and cause spalling on the opposite side which, in the case of an exlposion under the pavement, would mean on the top side of the pavement. But there is no such spalling, and we know that because we have photos of the top of the pavement. Therefore, there's no evidence that anything exploded underground. So if there were a missile or other munition which penetrated deep into the ground at that spot, the bomb squad had better dig it out to at least make sure it's not still dangerous. And at that point, they'll have some good physical evidence of what Israel supposedly attacked those ambulances with. But of course, that won't happen. Why? Because no munition penetrated the ground. Hell, we don't even know that it was caused by any munition at all, penetrating or not. That hole in the ground could have easily been caused by a pickaxe.

The shock wave could have expanded and caused distortions further away from the initial entrance point of the missile which would have been out of the view of the cameras and possibly even unnoticeable to untrained eyes who could have noticed it and taken the picture.

Clearly they do? Why is it clear? Oh yeah, because you've already assumed an answer, and so you'll invent the existence of things in order to confirm what you already believe. Need to convince yourself Israel deliberately targets ambulances? Easy! Just invent sooper-sekret Joo weapons.

I didn't assume anything. I'm basing my conclusions off of the available evidence and the weakness of the arguments asserting that it was some big conspiracy. If someone is proposing a conspiracy theory like this then I would ask for the proof, however their only "proof" is the supposed inconsistencies in the story or the impact itself which could easily be due to incorrect reporting, lack of experts on the scene at the time, etc, etc. None of which means it was some fake. You have the same mentality as the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers who go after a few flaws in the story itself or lack of information and then yell "Conspiracy" or "Coverup"!

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm simply saying the HRW has more resources to consult experts and it is more likely they did so than some random Blogger doing so. Since it's more likely then that lends credence to their reputability.

No, it doesn't.

Generally this would be an appeal to authority, except there is nothing else to appeal to since the arguments themselves proposed by the blogger are bunk.

First off, there's no "except that..." here: you're using a fallacy of argument from authority. Secondly, there isn't even any authority involved: what they could have done is not the same thing as what we know they did: if they want people to place additional weight on their arguments because they consulted experts, they better damned well tell us what those experts said, otherwise they could be telling us something totally different from what the experts said even if they did consult. Thirdly, if there's nothing else to appeal to, then does that mean you're not appealing to the strength of HRW's argument itself? I guess that's a reasonable decision, given how full of holes that argument is. Lastly, of course, I don't share your opinion about the flaws in that blogger's argument, and you haven't actually detailed what those supposed flaws are. You've only resorted to argument from authority: HRW is supposedly able to consult experts and since he disagrees with HRW, he must be wrong. How'd that line of argumentation work out for Dan Rather?

No. The hole in the ambulance would have been caused by the missile itself and the potholes in the roof by small fragments of metal breaking off of the missile as it hit the ambulance.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would pieces of the missile come off before impact or explosion? If the missile was falling apart because of defects, those other pieces wouldn't reach the speed the missile reached (because they came off while the missile was accelerating), and they wouldn't end up anywhere near the missile's final destination either. In fact, if pieces were falling off the missile in flight because of defects, the missile wouldn't even remain in controlled flight, because designers don't put extraneous pieces of metal on something like a missile.

It might not have exploded underground. Perhaps the Lebanese are just too incompetent to go get it.

Then why don't they ask for assistance? A lack of domestic expertise doesn't excuse not taking care of the problem. Unless, of course, the Lebanese government is even more cavalier about Lebanese civilian deaths than the Israeli government is.

The fact that nothing remains of the missile itself is proof that it's a hole not a shallow divot.

No, it isn't proof, nor is it even the simplest explanation consistent with that fact. The simplest explanation is that there WAS NO MISSILE.

The shock wave could have expanded and caused distortions further away from the initial entrance point of the missile which would have been out of the view of the cameras and possibly even unnoticeable to untrained eyes who could have noticed it and taken the picture.

No, it couldn't. Maximum intensity for a shock wave is closest to its origin. Furthermore, maximum damage from a given shockwave will occur when that shockwave impacts a surface (traveling from either side) perpendicular to that surface. BOTH points would be directly above the point of detonation. And since the trajectory of the supposed missile would have to be close to vertical (we know this from the holes in the ambulance), and because ground penatrating munitions cannot penetrate more than about ten feet unless they're huge (which this clearly isn't), the wide-area photo of the street DOES cover the area directly above any possible underground detonation point.

I didn't assume anything. I'm basing my conclusions off of the available evidence and the weakness of the arguments asserting that it was some big conspiracy.

Who said anything about the conspiracy being big? It need not be at all: just those guys in the ambulance who were supposedly hit. After that, all it takes is a gullible press eager to show a story of war crimes. It didn't take much of a conspiracy to fool Dan Rather.

You have the same mentality as the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers who go after a few flaws in the story itself or lack of information and then yell "Conspiracy" or "Coverup"!

Quite the reverse. 9/11 conspiracy theorists never construct a simple narrative of what they think the conspiracy is. The standard version of events is, in contrast, quite simple. It's a matter of Occam's razor: a conspiracy (beyond the hijackers, that is) for 9/11 is the more complex answer. But for this situation, fraud is the simplest answer. It's easy to pull off (they didn't have to produce any missile fragments, for example), and it explains all the inconsistencies in the "evidence" and the fact that no physical remains of the munition can be found anywhere. In contrast, those claiming that Israel actually attacked the ambulance cannot fix on a single narrative: what kind munition actually hit the vehicle? The answer keeps changing, depending on what bit of evidence you need to explain, and often relies upon assuming the existence of unknown munitions for which there is no evidence at all. Fitting the evidence to the story of an Israeli attack is endlessly complicated. And frankly, it IS a conspiracy theory: it requires that the Israeli military conspired to attack ambulances and then cover up their own crimes. Damn crafty Jews: I bet they stole all the missile fragments. Man, you're clueless.

 

[Dumbledore]

Well getting back to the issue at hand, besides Israel why do people hate Jews. Certainly not all antisemitism centers around Israel!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

First off, there's no "except that..." here: you're using a fallacy of argument from authority. Secondly, there isn't even any authority involved: what they could have done is not the same thing as what we know they did: if they want people to place additional weight on their arguments because they consulted experts, they better damned well tell us what those experts said, otherwise they could be telling us something totally different from what the experts said even if they did consult. Thirdly, if there's nothing else to appeal to, then does that mean you're not appealing to the strength of HRW's argument itself? I guess that's a reasonable decision, given how full of holes that argument is. Lastly, of course, I don't share your opinion about the flaws in that blogger's argument, and you haven't actually detailed what those supposed flaws are. You've only resorted to argument from authority: HRW is supposedly able to consult experts and since he disagrees with HRW, he must be wrong. How'd that line of argumentation work out for Dan Rather?

According to their website...

In response, Human Rights Watch researchers carried out a more in-depth investigation of the Qana ambulance attacks. Our investigation involved detailed interviews with four of the six ambulance staff and the three wounded people in the ambulance, on-site visits to the Tibnine and Tyre Red Cross offices from which the ambulances originated to review their records and meet with supervisors, an examination of the ambulances that were struck, an on-site visit to the Qana site where the attack took place, and interviews with others such as international officials with the International Committee of the Red Cross who were involved in responding to the attack on the night it happened.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/1.htm#_Toc152999220

So they had "researchers" go to the site and examine the the ambulance, take interviews with those who were there as well as with international officials to get the true story.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would pieces of the missile come off before impact or explosion? If the missile was falling apart because of defects, those other pieces wouldn't reach the speed the missile reached (because they came off while the missile was accelerating), and they wouldn't end up anywhere near the missile's final destination either. In fact, if pieces were falling off the missile in flight because of defects, the missile wouldn't even remain in controlled flight, because designers don't put extraneous pieces of metal on something like a missile.

The intense heat could have caused small pieces of molten metal to flake off of the missile.

Then why don't they ask for assistance? A lack of domestic expertise doesn't excuse not taking care of the problem. Unless, of course, the Lebanese government is even more cavalier about Lebanese civilian deaths than the Israeli government is.

Could be.

No, it isn't proof, nor is it even the simplest explanation consistent with that fact. The simplest explanation is that there WAS NO MISSILE.

That's hardly the simplest explanation. You're making more assumptions by assuming there was no missile. First you're assuming there was some big conspiracy with international officials involved, then you're assuming that the people involved are so incompetent that they can't even notice that the missile seemed to have "vanished" into thin air. Then you're assuming that all of the reporters there couldn't notice that it was a fraud, if it was. You're making far more assumptions to say it was some elaborate conspiracy concocted by the Lebanese govt, or Hezbollah, or whomever than is needed to say it was simply Israeli incompetence that caused the missile to hit the ambulance.

No, it couldn't. Maximum intensity for a shock wave is closest to its origin.

Ok, Mr. Ballistics expert. You're assuming that the medium in which the shockwave is traveling is perfectly even and there exist no massive changes in the medium which could change the shockewave. Such as a sewer.

And since the trajectory of the supposed missile would have to be close to vertical (we know this from the holes in the ambulance), and because ground penatrating munitions cannot penetrate more than about ten feet unless they're huge (which this clearly isn't), the wide-area photo of the street DOES cover the area directly above any possible underground detonation point.

You're assuming the missile didn't change trajectory underground or that it didn't go deeper due to a sewer. Most city streets aren't totally concrete straight down and have sewers under them or soft sand or even other material which could alter the trajectory of the missile so that the shockwave from its detonation wouldn't have been directly above it's impact spot.

Quite the reverse. 9/11 conspiracy theorists never construct a simple narrative of what they think the conspiracy is. The standard version of events is, in contrast, quite simple. It's a matter of Occam's razor: a conspiracy (beyond the hijackers, that is) for 9/11 is the more complex answer. But for this situation, fraud is the simplest answer. It's easy to pull off (they didn't have to produce any missile fragments, for example), and it explains all the inconsistencies in the "evidence" and the fact that no physical remains of the munition can be found anywhere. In contrast, those claiming that Israel actually attacked the ambulance cannot fix on a single narrative: what kind munition actually hit the vehicle? The answer keeps changing, depending on what bit of evidence you need to explain, and often relies upon assuming the existence of unknown munitions for which there is no evidence at all. Fitting the evidence to the story of an Israeli attack is endlessly complicated. And frankly, it IS a conspiracy theory: it requires that the Israeli military conspired to attack ambulances and then cover up their own crimes. Damn crafty Jews: I bet they stole all the missile fragments. Man, you're clueless.

You as well as that "Blogger" who you keep referencing are using the same flawed reasoning as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You're relying on faulty initial reports of the events and then concocting a big framework based on those faulty initial reports. However the fact is simple, when organizations (such as the HRW) sent researchers to the actual places and examined the actual evidence after the fact and conducted numerous interviews their conclusion was that it was not a hoax or a conspiracy. That was their conclusion. You're relying on the expertise of some anonymous blogger who is in turn relying on faulty initial reports of the event and you're deluding yourself. The entire argument being made by you as well as anyone claiming this was some "conspiracy" totally relies on 3 or 4 pictures of the ambulance as well as faulty initial reports of the incident while you ignore the conclusions of organizations who visited the scene and studied the ambulance and conducted numerous interviews with witnesses and international officials.

All of the arguments that it was some "hoax" are easily refuted. Arguments from the assertion that "rust" on the roof proves that the ambulance hole was caused earlier to Hezbollah simply removing the roofs air vent to make it appear that it was struck with a missile to the contention that the damage to the ambulance must have been worse if it was hit with a missile. The fact is, you're deluding yourself into believing some conspiracy because you can't admit that Israel did such a thing due to your inherent bias.

 

[Ziggurat]

So they had "researchers" go to the site and examine the the ambulance, take interviews with those who were there as well as with international officials to get the true story.

And who were those researchers? Were they just HRW staffers? Or did they have any actual expertise in forensics, ballistics, or anything military related? You can't tell, can you? Which means there's no reason to presume any expertise: the only thing which can be evaluated is the strength of their argument. And that falls apart badly. As for consultation with "international officials", ie, red cross officials, do they actually know anything beyond what the ambulance drivers told them? No evidence of that exists either. You're continuing to try to play the argument from authority card, and it still doesn't work.

The intense heat could have caused small pieces of molten metal to flake off of the missile.

Intense heat of what? The Lebanese summer? This is about the silliest thing you've written, and that's saying something.

That's hardly the simplest explanation. You're making more assumptions by assuming there was no missile. First you're assuming there was some big conspiracy with international officials involved,

Again, argument from authority: what does being an "international official" have to do with anything? And secondly, what kind of involvement is even required? If all they did is repeat what they were told by the ambulance drivers, then yeah, they're "involved", but they don't have to actually be in on the deception. All their "involvement" would demonstrate is what the version of events being given by the drivers was at that particular date - it would not indicate anything at all about the accuracy of the account.

then you're assuming that the people involved are so incompetent that they can't even notice that the missile seemed to have "vanished" into thin air.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what HRW is claiming. They in fact go to some lengths to try to formulate explanations for why exactly that might have happened. You seem to be of the opinion that it's more likely that such a vanishing act actually occured than that someone was just too incompetent to figure out that that's not possible. Because despite your personal insistence that the missile might have lodged itself deep underground, HRW doesn't list that as a possible explanation. Maybe because they saw that the "hole" doesn't actually lead anywhere.

Then you're assuming that all of the reporters there couldn't notice that it was a fraud, if it was.

No, I'm not assuming that: it's perfectly possible the reporter knows but doesn't care. I cannot distinguish between the scenarios.

You're making far more assumptions to say it was some elaborate conspiracy concocted by the Lebanese govt, or Hezbollah, or whomever than is needed to say it was simply Israeli incompetence that caused the missile to hit the ambulance.

But you cannot simply say that: you have to square the physical evidence with that scenario, and you and HRW have both consistently FAILED to do so.

However the fact is simple, when organizations (such as the HRW) sent researchers to the actual places and examined the actual evidence after the fact and conducted numerous interviews their conclusion was that it was not a hoax or a conspiracy. That was their conclusion.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it was. Doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong. And they did: their arguments make no sense.

All of the arguments that it was some "hoax" are easily refuted.

No, they aren't. As pointed out before, you STILL cannot point to ANY munition and say the evidence is consistent with this. Not a single one. You keep flipping back and forth between different possibilities, invent nonexistent munitions out of thin air, and add in nonsensical additions to try to account for the overwhelming discrepencies. Why aren't there ANY remains of the munition? Is it because it penetrated the ground? What kind of munition is that small and can still penetrate a road deep enough and cleanly enough not to leave any surface traces of its impact? And if that is what happened, what are the other marks on the roof? Pieces of the missile melting off in mid-flight? You've GOT to be kidding with that one. And why is the entry hole larger than the exit hole? It should be the reverse (quiz for the day: do you have any clue as to why it's basically always the reverse?). In fact, if the missile can penetrate the road with that clean and small a hole, the hole in the roof would be that small too, because solid pavement with transmit damage outwards from the entry point far better than thin sheet metal. You can't come up with a single coherent theory of what happened, and neither could HRW. ALL you can do, and all you HAVE done, is appeal to HRW's supposed authority. Dan Rather, line 1...

 

[Corsair 115]

The money stays among Germans. It's similar to the opposition to importing goods to America at the cost of Americans producing them.

Uh, what about the other side of that equation - America exporting goods to other countries?

 

[a_unique_person]

Well getting back to the issue at hand, besides Israel why do people hate Jews. Certainly not all antisemitism centers around Israel!

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, as you read that far through his post, you DO worry me.

OK, fine, finally someone got in a dig at me that was completely and utterly justified. I can't even claim boredom as an excuse.

Full points to gtc on that one. Ouch! heh.

 

[LibraryLady]

It's simple, man. If you believe that Jews need to go, then it's a medical situation. Nazis always said, "You are sick" referring to any White person thought to be displaying, "Jewish thinking" and they always said that Jews are sick . . . that they are walking germs.

Since Hitler stole the idea of vascectomizing the mentally feeble from America . . . hey, he should have gone further and vascectomized 6 million Jews. Then he wouldn't be thought of as a murderer . . . just a ball snipper.

He, uh . .. actually did sterilize retards. They even had a feeble minded man that he sterilized at Neuremburg (sp?). The lawyer defending the Nazis proved that the man who was sterilized was, in fact, retarded . . . and that his condition was genetic. He came from a very large family in Germany . . . and they were all retarded. All of their children would have been retarded, too.

Homosexuality is also a good method of reducing the population . . . weither it be the population of Jewish people or the population in general. The side effect is Socialism (Gays tend to be a little sensitive and Socialist) . . . which is okay because we're talking about National Socialism . . . Nazis.

This is what I mean by, "Pleasuring Jews to death" . . . this is the method and it destroys violent anti-Semitism. It makes pressuring Jews into the program fun (as any bisexual young punk rock girl can tell you when attempting to seduce Natile Portman) . . . and it makes the clumbsy over-enthusiastic look silly . .. all you have to say is, "Okay, keep your shirt on, babe."

The world can go through it's Nazi phase and never harm a Jew . . . and perhaps learn something about genetics. If Jews are genetically inferior and extremely prone to causing Socialism which destroys a Civilization by weakening it (like worms boring holes in a healthy apple) . . . then sex is the answer. Lots and lots of sex.

It's a good thing that, unlike what the Nazis said . . . many Jewish women are hot. And young men.

If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

Nazis were unprofessional - but it was not their unprofessionalism that caused the war. It was their natural distrust of America which was caused by the mind-numbing conservatism of the time. Hitler had no idea that America was ready to play and just couldn't trust us. Those were desperate times, and it is up to us to make sure none of it ever happenes again.

Never again.

Yahrzeit candle.