The Quds News Network posted a picture of a wrecked ambulance and claimed that it was targeted by an Israeli airstrike.
Unfortunately, the picture shows a virtually intact ambulance that ran over a horse and is apparently an old picture to boot.
Of course Quds News Network is not really a news network as most would consider one. Instead it's purpose is "According to QNN journalist Ahmed Yousef, "the ultimate mission of Quds
News is not about business or journalism but to promote the Palestinian
fight against Israel.". So why anyone would re post or use QNN as a source for anything factual is beyond me.
9 comments:
I recall in an earlier conflict in the Middle East...I don't recall where it occurred exactly...there was a picture of an ambulance with a hole in the roof, said by islamic apologists to be from a missile strike. It was merely the absence of its revolving emergency light.
Much like the bullshit Hospital bombing that the MSM ran without checking it out, this is simply more propaganda which call into question anything that is sourced from any pro Hamas outlet.
I can't see any news source worth its salt who doesn't vet info coming from islamic sources of any kind. Or from communist sources, or leftist sources of any kind...even though most of them are leftists, too. Doesn't it make sense that any news source who puts facts above ideology would profit handsomely...especially in today's fractious climate? This is especially important now given all which comes from that part of the world due to the current troubles. If a muslim said your hair is on fire, you might want to check a mirror of your own before acting on the info.
All you need to look at is how the NYT uncritically ran with the bullshit story about the hospital bombing, without verifying the press release. Likewise, the fact that every leftist I've seen is uncritically publishing casualty numbers from Hamas, because they might rape, torture, mutilate, murder, and destroy, but they'd never lie.
1. It is a given that in war/fighting times, one or both or all sides of the battle will exaggerate the worst actions of "the enemy." Israel has done this. Hamas has done this. The US has done it. It's a common reality.
2. Thus, when Hamas or Gaza or Israel make a claim about the awful actions of "the enemy," it should always be taken with a grain of salt. Some sides, more than others.
3. Nonetheless, clearly Israel is killing innocent Palestinians. That number may "only" be 7,000 innocent men, women and children in Palestine rather than 10,000, but huge numbers of people - including truly innocent children and aid workers - are being killed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/middleeast/casualties-gazas-shifa-hospital-idf/index.html
4. That being said, it begs a reasonable question: WHAT are the parameters of harm that YOU accept as being acceptable for Israel vs crossing over into war crimes category?
A. IF there are 5 Hamas soldiers hiding behind or underneath the ambulance/hospital is that an acceptable target for you KNOWING that 10 or 20 innocent Palestinians will be killed likely?
B. What if it's only 2 Hamas soldiers in the area that are successfully killed by Israel but it kills 25 innocents, including 10 sick/injured children who were in the hospital?
C. What if Israel THINKS there are 2 Hamas soldiers hiding behind/beneath/in the hospital and Israel blows it up knowing that there will be 25 innocent Palestinians killed?
Where do you draw the line to say, "WOAH! That's too much. That is a war crime?
D. What if Israeli soldiers say that by raping Palestinian women, they can get intel on where to find Hamas soldiers... war crime?
E. What if the Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian children to get that intel... war crime?
Do you have ANY limits on what you'd say Israel can or can't do?
You see, if you're someone like me who says that NO innocent people should be deliberately predictably harmed to get to "the bad guys," then the answers are easy:
A, B, C, D, E... ALL wrong and should not be done.
But because you all don't hold to that sort of value system, we can reasonably ask you where you DO draw the lines or if you have no lines at all?
I'm guessing that Marshal is probably okay with just about any actions by Israel to kill Hamas and Palestinian innocents and "let God sort them out," but I suspect that Craig has something of a conscience in him that would maybe draw the line somewhere. But you all tell me.
These are reasonable questions to ask. These are questions that WILL be asked of Israel eventually and they may well find themselves facing war crimes charges (personally, I can't see how they won't be facing charges, just based on what we know already).
Part of the problem is the arguable vagueness of our war crimes law. There are no hard parameters as to when innocents can be killed or maimed, including children, including hospital/human rights workers. The language leans hard against ANY such killing of innocents, but it's got a bit of vague wiggle room, at least some would argue. Including you all, as you've made clear.
1. This is quite a claim to be presented as a fact, while offering absolutely zero proof.
2. You are free to do so according your your personal prejudices, predilections, biases, and political leanings. But, if your going to go beyond yourself, then facts would be helpful.
3. Nevertheless, Hamas has been intentionally and indiscriminately killing innocent Israeli citizens and tourists for years, but let's ignore that. Let's pretend that Israel should simply accept these indiscriminate attacks aimed it areas with no military significance without responding because Hamas wants the women, children, and elderly of Gaza to die to protect their "holy warriors".
4. I already pointed out the specific sections of the Geneva Convention (which you offered as the arbiter of such matters), which allow the actions of the IDF without being labeled as war crimes. I further pointed out the specific sections of the GC which apply to the actions of Hamas, yet I haven't seen you apply the GC to Hamas. Instead of repeating myself, I'll simply refer you to those responses and the questions I asked.
A. If those 5 Hamas Holy Warriors control 1000 unguided rockets that they plan to indiscriminately launch at innocent Israeli civilians, then absolutely. If those 5 Hamas Holy Warriors are using those mythical civilians as human shields and refuse to allow them to leave, than I place the responsibility at the feet of he Hamas Holy Warriors. Your slanted hypotheticals are always amusing.
B. What if those two Hamas Holy Warriors have the building wired with explosives and detonate those explosives and blame the IDF? What if those two are in the process of launching 1000 unguided rockets at random civilian targets and will kill 500 innocent Israeli children? What if those two Hamas Holy Warriors had already killed 25 innocent Israeli children? What it a meteorite landed on the location a split second before the IDF hit it? Stupid hypotheticals don't help bring clarity, especially when they're so vague?
C. What is Hamas launches 500-1000 unguided rockets at Israel and kills 10,000 innocent Israelis?
"Where do you draw the line to say, "WOAH! That's too much. That is a war crime?
Since the Geneva Convention deals with human shield situations, and specifically addresses them, I don't see where my opinion has any value. When does the Hamas use of human shields and their direct responsibility for these deaths prompt you to say "Wow, that's a war crime?"?
D. What if Hamas Holy Warriors rape Israeli women and girls just for fun? What if they record those rapes, and use them for propaganda?
E. Again, you must be confused as to which side in this conflict actually engages in rape.
"Do you have ANY limits on what you'd say Israel can or can't do?"
Irrelevant. But I did point out the specifics of the GC when it comes to things like this.
"But because you all don't hold to that sort of value system, we can reasonably ask you where you DO draw the lines or if you have no lines at all?"
You are right, my value system does not derive from my personal subjective hunches which I have no basis to apply to others. I already pointed out the relevant specific sections in the GC which address these issues. Which already forbid rape, although you seem content to ignore the use of rape by Hamas as simply part of your bland, nonspecific mild shaking your finger at Hamas.
"I'm guessing that Marshal is probably okay with just about any actions by Israel to kill Hamas and Palestinian innocents and "let God sort them out," but I suspect that Craig has something of a conscience in him that would maybe draw the line somewhere. But you all tell me."
I don't care about your guesses.
"These are reasonable questions to ask. These are questions that WILL be asked of Israel eventually and they may well find themselves facing war crimes charges (personally, I can't see how they won't be facing charges, just based on what we know already)."
They're idiotic questions to ask unless you ask them about both sides, but you don't.
"Part of the problem is the arguable vagueness of our war crimes law. There are no hard parameters as to when innocents can be killed or maimed, including children, including hospital/human rights workers. The language leans hard against ANY such killing of innocents, but it's got a bit of vague wiggle room, at least some would argue. Including you all, as you've made clear."
Who cares what your hunches are?
"You see, if you're someone like me who says that NO innocent people should be deliberately predictably harmed to get to "the bad guys," then the answers are easy..."
Says the guy who supports innocent people being deliberately and predictably murdered in utero without any thought of getting to "bad guys" of any kind. What a fraud Dan is! Posturing as if he gives a flying rat's backside about "innocent" palestinians. What an obvious anti-Semite!
"3. Nonetheless, clearly Israel is killing innocent Palestinians."
A lie Dan has no problem perpetuating. If the pallies launch their attacks from behind civilians, the real question Dan hasn't the intelligence or honesty to consider, much less ask as he postures as a "Christian" concerned with "innocent" lives, is this: How many Israeli citizens is Dan willing to see murdered...not "killed" collaterally or otherwise...before concern for the lives of so-called "innocent" pallies is nothing more than suicide? Again, these are people who supported electing Hamas to rule them, who support the notion of total annihilation of the Jews and teach their children the same, who may or may not be forced to remain in harm's way for the purpose of denying Israel a clean line of sight for their military responses and then, when said shields die, exploit their deaths for propaganda purposes. And among those forced to stick around as shields, together with those who are murdered by Hamas as they attempt to flee to a safer place, how many of those people nonetheless support the total annihilation of Jews? Just because they flee, just because they aren't personally firing upon truly innocent Jewish civilians, that doesn't mean they're not down with the cause. Dan's false concern for them as "innocents" when Israeli citizens are truly and more accurately labeled as such is appalling. But then, that's Dan.
To drive home the point of my question, I offer yet another example of "innocent" pallies:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/11/children_as_young_as_ten_participated_on_the_october_7_attack_in_israel.html
Dan will take this with a grain of salt despite the documentation available proving the claims of the link. Dan cares nothing for pallies or Israelis. Dan cares about appearing to care.
"C. What if Israel THINKS there are 2 Hamas soldiers hiding behind/beneath/in the hospital and Israel blows it up knowing that there will be 25 innocent Palestinians killed?"
Dan likes to play these hypothetical games. When confronted with his failure to address the atrocities of Hamas and other jihadists...or for that matter, the clearly bad behavior of modern progressives we witness constantly these days...he laments that he's made his position clear on in his motto of "do no harm...especially to 'innocents'". Yet with his hypothetical "what ifs", he implies support for all the evil "what ifs" he conjures to pretend he has a point. With the quote above, on what basis can he suggest that the IDF only "thinks" they've identified Hamas assholes, when the reality is their level of certainty is higher than Dan's about his own existence. The IDF isn't stupid. They've 75 years of experience. Dan's got his head up his backside. This is clear from both the "THINKS" crap and the "hiding" crap. They aren't "hiding". They're purposely launching their attacks from those positions knowing the presence of allegedly "innocent" pallies will inhibit Israel's ability to destroy them. Indeed, the entirety of Gaza is for all intents and purposes a military target, as Hamas and other jihadist assholes use both Gaza and the West Bank (and the Golan Heights) as such. This is not even a debatable claim. It's absolute fact with which no honest person finds grounds to dispute.
As to drawing lines, it's really crystal clear. Despite how jihadists operate, the safety of the people over whom they rule is of absolutely no consequence. That's because of the evil which courses through the veins of the jihadists and their people and their unrelenting drive to wipe Jews from the face of the earth. And when they finish, or while they're attempting to succeed in that murderous endeavor, they plan on doing likewise to the rest of us, and morons like the modern progressives will be the easiest for them to harm in all the evil ways they've harmed those 1400 Israelis on Oct 7. And given what we know in fact regarding how they live their vile lives and raise their own kids, determining exactly who among those people are truly "innocent" is next to impossible. For the scant few who are manifestations of the Biblical reference to the untaught having God's Word written on their hearts, I rely on God to take them up upon their deaths if they are victims of the righteous and necessary retaliatory plans of Israel and sensible Westerners. But no way is there an argument which justifies Israel putting themselves in harms way for the benefit of those few if they even exist, which I doubt. Again, based on what we know about those people, the truly innocent can be no older than 3 or 4 years old. From the time they can understand their native tongue, they're on their way to being assholes like those murdering Jews.
Thus, none of Dan's "questions" are in any way "reasonable" because Dan's too stupid to understand what "reasonable" is. The evidence is in his moronic "what ifs". It's in his moral equivalency bullshit. It's in his determination to pretend Israel is targeting civilians or his insistence they can't launch any reprisal against Hamas murderers if there's any chance a civilian might be harmed.
Dan's posturing is contemptible. He's a fake of the worst kind.
Post a Comment