More media deception in aid of the jihad. Zombie (thanks to Henry Morgan) has the whole story:
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.But there's one problem: It never happened.
* * *Of all the exposés and scandals surrounding the media's coverage of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, The Red Cross Ambulance Incident stands out as the most serious. The other exposés were spectacular in their simplicity (photographers staging scenes, clumsy attempts at Photoshopping images), but often concerned fairly trivial details. What does it matter whether there was a big cloud of smoke over Beirut, or a really big cloud of smoke, as one notorious doctored photograph showed? The fact that the media was lying was indeed extremely important, and justified the publicity surrounding the exposés -- but what they were lying about was often minor, a slight fudging of the visuals to exaggerate the damage.
The ambulance incident, however, was anything but trivial. The media accused Israel of the most heinous type of war crime: intentionally targeting neutral ambulances which were attempting to rescue innocent victims. If true -- and it is almost universally accepted as true -- then Israel would lose any claim to moral superiority in the conflict. The commanders who ordered the strike should be brought up on war-crimes charges. As it is, the worldwide outcry over Israel's purported malfeasances grew so strident that the country was pressured into a ceasefire. The media's depictions of Israel's actions so influenced public opinion that Israel felt compelled to end the fighting right at the moment it was starting to gain the upper hand. And as a result, Hezbollah has now claimed victory.
The Red Cross Ambulance Incident was perhaps the most damning of all the evidence against Israel, and the most morally indefensible. Other incidents were open to debate: in those cases where Israel bombed buildings that turned out to have civilians inside, Israel claimed either that it didn't know the building was occupied, or that it was trying to hit a Hezbollah stronghold elsewhere in the same building; or that the strike was a mistake, an errant missile. But targeting clearly marked ambulances, and hitting them directly -- there's no possible excuse for that. So this specific incident contributed to the outrage over the war, eventually causing Israel to stand down.
Which makes it all the more shocking to learn that the attack on the ambulances most likely never occurred, and that the "evidence" supporting the claim is in fact a hoax.
He then presents the evidence for the hoax. Be sure to read it all.
Doesn't the media control the thinking of the world????...
I would like to know of which of these media outlets does the Saudi Prince own shares in....
I have always said that if you want to control the thinking of the world, don't become a president or prime minister,, simply own the media... our media is no better than the countries who have dictators, media silence or media distortions change the course of history, and the only way to stop this is don't buy a paper,, don't watch the news,, if we all let them know that we are sick of the bias they will stop being dishonest, (may be). There are now very few reporters now who have integrity so why do we persist in watching or reading of their lies...
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles.
I believed this was a hoax when I heard it, Have you ever seen a motor vehicle struck by air to ground missiles? There are no injuries, only instant death, no survivors. I suspect the whole episode was a set up photo shoot. Bring in some "casaulties", place them in some ambulances that you have damaged , set fire to the area to produce smoke, bring in the wailing babes in burkas, then call the photographers to the scene (most of the photographers were brought to the strike sites by the Hezbollah, the photographers were never at the sites when the "atrocities occurred". Then broadcast the tradgety as an Israel caused event.
Islam is all about deceit, it is true, and it has been proven many times. We Know it and they know we know it. THe more it happens, the more the lie of Islam is exposed. The more Islam is exposed, the quicker it dies.
I guess a moderate muslim is a muslim that doesn't lie 24/7.
As I was going over the pictures my son(who is fairly young) came up stairs to see what I was doing and ask me "what is that?" I told him it was an ambulance struck by a missle. He said "Wow it looks like it." I then asked him what he thought a vehicle would like by being hit by a missle. His reply was "It would crushed and smashed and on fire." I then scrolled down to the photo's of the burning cars and told him that they were also hit by missles. "That thing didn't get hit by a missle dad, if it did there would be body parts everywhere, and it would be on fire and that would be bad."
Is it possible for a country to sue a newspaper for libel? Like especially in the UK where the libel laws are so lax?
Practicing HTML here
If at first you don't succeed, click here
Ah ha