Regarding my "islamic terrorist buddies"
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
A hoax that was largely responsible for sparking the second intifada.
I guess starting wars on the basis of lies and deceptions is only bad when Bush does it.
I disagree. After watching the video, I am convinced the footage is authentic and Muhammed al Dura's death was not a war crime or murder.
In order for this to be a staged fake, you'd need a cast of extras greater than the size used in Ben Hur and the cooperation of the Israeli military. Also, if this was acting, then the actors deserve academy awards.
In the disturbing France 2 video referenced above, I saw a very large angry mob descend on an Israeli military outpost. While the majority of the mob appeared unarmed, hundreds of people pelted the Israeli position with rocks and fire bombs. The Israeli soldiers fired back at the crowd with live ammunition directed mostly at the people throwing rocks and fire bombs. When Palestinian militants started firing upon the Israeli position, the situation began to spiral out of Israeli control. I have no doubt that if this Israeli position was over run by the mob, they would have been torn to shreds. At this point the Israeli soldiers were no longer trying to disperse an angry mob, but fighting for their lives. I'd judge that out of fear, panic, confusion and self preservation, the Israeli soldiers started shooting at anything that moved. At this point most of the mob ran for their lives, leaving just the armed militants and a few civilians pinned down in the cross fire. In this situation, the Israeli soldiers had no way and no time to determine who were unarmed civilians and who were armed militants. More than likely, IDF fire killed Muhammed al Dura, but their motivation at this point was self preservation, not cold blooded murder.
Anyone who didn't want to be involved in a fight with potentially lethal consequence should have left when the protesters began throwing rocks and firebombs. Muhammed al Dura and his father weren't innocent bystanders but part of an angry mob. They could have left earlier, but choose to stay and therefore are directly responsible for the consequences. By the time they found themselves in an impossible situation, the IDF soldiers were already fighting for their lives.
That said, I also saw incredible acts of bravery and courage on the Palestinian side. I'm not talking about the people with rocks, fire bombs or firearms, but all the unarmed people who risked their lives to run into the open in the middle of a fire fight to drag the injured to safety. Some of these brave people were injured and possibly killed.
This incident didn't spark the second intifada... it was two days into the second intifada. The reason this Israeli outpost was attacked by a large mob was Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's (aka the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila) visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque two days earlier.
.
This conflict does involve deliberate Palestinian genocide and I'm not talking about the Operation Cast Lead massacre which was deliberate, calculated, cold blooded murder initiated by Israeli leaders as part of their re-election campaign.
I'm referring to the Sabra and Shatila genocide which was planned and directed by then Israeli General Ariel Sharon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
On massacres, atrocities and holocausts: Sabra and Shatila...
09/17/10
Sonja Karkar
Australians for Palestine
The Massacre
It happened twenty-eight years ago – 16 September 1982. A massacre so awful that people who know about it cannot forget it. The photos are gruesome reminders – charred, decapitated, indecently violated corpses, the smell of rotting flesh, still as foul to those who remember it as when they were recoiling from it all those years ago. For the victims and the handful of survivors, it was a 36-hour holocaust without mercy. It was deliberate, it was planned and it was overseen. But to this day, the killers have gone unpunished.
Sabra and Shatila – two Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon – were the theatres for this staged slaughter. The former is no longer there and the other is a ghostly and ghastly reminder of man’s inhumanity to men, women and children – more specifically, Israel’s inhumanity, the inhumanity of the people who did Israel’s bidding and the world’s inhumanity for pretending it was of no consequence. There were international witnesses – doctors, nurses, journalists – who saw the macabre scenes and have tried to tell the world in vain ever since.
Each act was barbarous enough on its own to warrant fear and loathing. It was human savagery at its worst and Dr Ang Swee Chai was an eye witness as she worked with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society on the dying and the wounded amongst the dead. What she saw was so unimaginable that the atrocities committed need to be separated from each other to even begin comprehending the viciousness of the crimes. [1]...
On massacres, atrocities and holocausts: Sabra and Shatila... - Another World Is Possible
>>>>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]SABRA AND SHATILA [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Robert Fisk [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]W[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]hat we found inside the Palestinian camp at ten o'clock on the morning of September 1982 did not quite beggar description, although it would have been easier to re-tell in the cold prose of a medical examination. There had been medical examinations before in Lebanon, but rarely on this scale and never overlooked by a regular, supposedly disciplined army. In the panic and hatred of battle, tens of thousands had been killed in this country. But these people, hundreds of them had been shot down unarmed. This was a mass killing, an incident - how easily we used the word "incident" in Lebanon - that was also an atrocity. It went beyond even what the Israelis would have in other circumstances called a terrorist activity. It was a war crime. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jenkins and Tveit were so overwhelmed by what we found in Chatila that at first we were unable to register our own shock. Bill Foley of AP had come with us. All he could say as he walked round was "Jesus Christ" over and over again. We might have accepted evidence of a few murders; even dozens of bodies, killed in the heat of combat. Bur there were women lying in houses with their skirts torn torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart, children with their throats cut, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were babies - blackened babies babies because they had been slaughtered more than 24-hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition - tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey....[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-fisk180903.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]>>>>[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
I already answered this allegation in the other thread.
Also I noticed that you refused to condemn Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. Did you notice the first post in this thread, where I challenge my critics to acknowledge and condemn all war crimes and crimes against humanity in this conflict?
Last edited:
That's HILARIOUS!
What is graphic is the last 10 seconds which were edited from the news broadcast.........that shows the kid lifting his arm and peeking out at the camera.
It's a HOAX!
Or perhaps the first 20 minutes of film, which shows Palestinians running, falling as if shot, carried to ambulances and loaded in.........and then emerging, grinning, having played their role....
It's a HOAX!
AND, btw, the Israeli Army initially expressed regret over the killing.......it was German investigative reporters that cast doubt on the film........only then did the IDF take another look.....
It's a HOAX.
Do you even look at the stuff I posted????
Those children are victims of an ideology.
Just like these kids.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50r0CnKq7_k&feature=fvw
Of course, no Palistinians have ever been shot...ever.
The Jews have always been perfect and have never ever done anything wrong.....ever.
Guess I'm a Joo hater now for saying that.
Last edited:
Yes I did, Colpy. I can tell the difference between $hit and Shinola and apparently you can't.
Your pro-Israel sources which purport this as a hoax fail Occam's razor test.
In order to believe the hoax theory purported by your sources, you'd have to believe that the camera man created this hoax while a riot was going on, or that the Israeli military was in on the hoax or that the camera man was able to get thousands of angry protesters to stop protesting and start acting while the Israeli military and Palestinian militants exchanged fire all around them or you'd have to believe that the camera man faked the scene, in a way the it matched footage captured by other cameramen from other news organizations (without seeing the other footage) and then inserted it in the middle of the other scenes without leaving a trace that it was edited.
In order to believe France 2's footage is authentic, you just have to believe that the short sequence involving the father/son was shot in the middle of a riot.
I'm 99.9% certain your pro-Israel propaganda source's were deliberately deceitful and manipulative.
Let me consider some of the other "proof" this was a hoax.
Because the camera man didn't keep the camera trained only on the father/son for the entire period the father/saw were hiding behind the barrel its a hoax.
BS! There was lots of stuff going on and the camera man has a limited amount of film. Off course he is going to turn off the camera for periods of time, such as when he's in the line of fire and running for his life. Of course he's going to capture other scenes from the riot going on around him and then come back to the father/son hiding behind the barrel.
Because the camera didn't maintain focus and was shaky, its a hoax.
BS! The camera man was in the middle of a riot. No doubt he's going to have some problems maintaining a steady hand and focus.
Because the camera man was a local, shooting independently without the supervision of the France 2 reporter, its a hoax.
BS! Sometimes camera men and reporters get separated, especially in places like Israel and the Occupied territories where travel involves going through military road blocks.
Because an Israeli propagandist appealed and over turned his defamation case, its a hoax.
BS! The judge said the camera man's statements alleging the IDF shot the father/son can't be proven with 100% certainty, even if its the most likely scenario. Therefore, the Israeli propagandist can claim that statement might not be true, so he over turned the previous defamation ruling. We'll see how France 2's appeal to the French Supreme court plays out. If the French Supreme Court do decide in France 2's favor, that means the evidence is 100% conclusive that the IDF shot the father/son and the Israeli propagandist is guilty of defamation. If the propagandist wins, then the evidence is less than 100% conclusive that the IDF shot the father/son, which means that Israeli propagandist can claim he believes the camera man's claim about IDF responsibility was wrong.
Because France 2 has been fooled by a hoax in the past, this report is a hoax.
BS! While its true that France 2 has been fooled at least once, they quickly printed a retraction when they realized their mistake. In this case they are not printing a retraction and appealing the defamation case to the French Supreme court, which means they are convinced its real.
BTW, even CAMERA isn't challenging the authenticity of the rest of the scenes. Many reporters were their that day, and even your sources show footage from other sources which show the father/son hiding behind a barrel. They claim that because they didn't run when everyone else ran, that proves they were staying in place, in order to fake the son's death a few minutes later. Well that's a load of BS. The father/son could have run, but they appeared paralyzed by fear. Your sources only challenge this one scene in isolation like it was the only event that happened that day. That's awfully selective. Either the entire clip is BS or its not. There is no evidence that the clip was edited and this one faked scene was inserted in the middle.
So yes I remain convinced this scene along with the others in this France 2 footage is authentic.
Also, I don't find a people getting shot "hilarious". I found the France 2 footage deeply disturbing. I bet you never had the balls to view it. No I don't recommend everyone seeing it, but I do recommend you take the time to watch the footage from beginning until the end. Since you find death and carnage 'hilarious', I suspect you will be very amused.
Last edited:
Yea, I think this is a pretty reasonable stance to take here. I'm not sure about your previous statements -- maybe you said something that was biased toward one side or another at some point -- but as long as you maintain the attitude in this post and don't stray from that, I fail to see why anyone should get butt hurt over your comments.
It's pretty obvious that this is a political issue where there needs to be one clear enemy. All of the most powerful states have and will continue to paint others as purely evil and themselves as purely good. Whether it's Israel, the U.S., Canada or most nations in Europe (or any other powerful state for that matter) -- these regions need to be more honest about their own failings if productive diplomacy is going to ever succeed.
Could be worse. You could be a Joo-cannibal.
You know what, I'm going to do something I'm not oft forced to do, nor incapable of doing. I can't find an exact quote from EAO, stating that the Hezbollah are freedom fighters. I think that was before I came back from Raw Democracy. And my catalog started after.
So I'm going to eat it. and concede.
But my point is still made valid by the rest of the archive. Let's run down EAO's claims about Israel
Apartheid state.
Like Nazi Germany.
Israeli military deliberately targets civilians.
Hamas is more honest than Israel.
And so on...My point proven, EAO is not a simple critic or Israel. People like Lone Wolf, or Ten Penny would be a good example of that. No Eao is anti Joo.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/90546-pallywood.html
Sadly YouTube buckled to the special interest group Joo haters like EAO, and banned Paletine Watch. The producers of that illuminating video expose.
For which I received a negative rep from someone. Seems the truth is a bad thing to the usual suspects.
But any site that reports unsubstantiated claims, based on anecdotal evidence, no matter how contrived, with supporting links that circle right back around to the original story for proof, is OK by you, so long as it paints Israel in a bad light...Gotchya.
Typical Joo hater mentality.
That just wouldn't do. What would that mean to your whole hatred?
Would you therefore have to reflect and assess the bulk of what you believe and re-analyze it?
Could you?
Could you still justify your hatred if you found out that you've been believing a lie?
Besides that, have you got any proof that his source was "deliberately deceitful and manipulative"?
I won't be waiting for an answer. You don't answer the tough questions. Ever!
What part did you find disturbing?
The part where the supposed;y shot man was grabbed and lifted by the part of his body he was shot in?
Or...
The fact that the whole "riot" was staged. That part is a fact. As has been shown several times in several threads.
Nor does it show the multitude of posts and threads, in which EAO had attempted to delegitimize Israel. Before he simply stuck to demonization as his goal.
He had to, he couldn't argue the history anymore. He kept getting proven wrong.
But if you want a real treat, stick around and see if EAO supplies some proof that Colpy's source is deceitful and manipulative, as he claimed.
That's usually a good sign as to the validity of ones argument.
As you can see from his stalwart belief that the video hoax, isn't a hoax.
So you can use it to justify your hatred of Joos.
I love how you spin facts, you're just like Ambassador Bolton. LOL!!!
You see, that would be the main difference between EAO and I. No matter how asinine the source. I still take the time to tear it apart. And with EAO's sources, that isn't hard.
Funny how EAO can't tear apart those sources he claims or propagandists eh?
So I'm going to eat it. and concede.
But my point is still made valid by the rest of the archive. Let's run down EAO's claims about Israel
Apartheid state.
Like Nazi Germany.
Israeli military deliberately targets civilians.
Hamas is more honest than Israel.
And so on...My point proven, EAO is not a simple critic or Israel. People like Lone Wolf, or Ten Penny would be a good example of that. No Eao is anti Joo.
Of course not Colpy. I posted a thread on this very tape long ago...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/90546-pallywood.html
Sadly YouTube buckled to the special interest group Joo haters like EAO, and banned Paletine Watch. The producers of that illuminating video expose.
For which I received a negative rep from someone. Seems the truth is a bad thing to the usual suspects.
This thread is about EAO's hate on for Joos, not fundamentalist Christians.
No one here has ever said that clown.
Oh now I get it, a fool has to say something. Gotchya.
No just a moron.
No you can't. But you can tell the difference between what supports and justifies you hatred of Joos and what doesn't. Hence why you will believe this story to the bitter end.
What an excellent example of projection. Any site that reports that facts, complete with bibliographies of reporters and key players, is a pro Israel site, and therefore not legitimate. Even if they show and can prove the facts to be as they have reported them.
But any site that reports unsubstantiated claims, based on anecdotal evidence, no matter how contrived, with supporting links that circle right back around to the original story for proof, is OK by you, so long as it paints Israel in a bad light...Gotchya.
Typical Joo hater mentality.
Of course you are, you have a predetermined outcome in mind. Not to mention, if it were true, you would have to accept that you may have been conned.
That just wouldn't do. What would that mean to your whole hatred?
Would you therefore have to reflect and assess the bulk of what you believe and re-analyze it?
Could you?
Could you still justify your hatred if you found out that you've been believing a lie?
Besides that, have you got any proof that his source was "deliberately deceitful and manipulative"?
I won't be waiting for an answer. You don't answer the tough questions. Ever!
Of course you do, you need it to be authentic.
I watched every last second available EAO.
What part did you find disturbing?
The part where the supposed;y shot man was grabbed and lifted by the part of his body he was shot in?
Or...
The fact that the whole "riot" was staged. That part is a fact. As has been shown several times in several threads.
I actually agree. But that isn't the crux of EAO's beliefs, nor does it fairly represent the bias he shows when spamming this site with his demonization of Israel threads.
Nor does it show the multitude of posts and threads, in which EAO had attempted to delegitimize Israel. Before he simply stuck to demonization as his goal.
He had to, he couldn't argue the history anymore. He kept getting proven wrong.
But if you want a real treat, stick around and see if EAO supplies some proof that Colpy's source is deceitful and manipulative, as he claimed.
That's usually a good sign as to the validity of ones argument.
He does stray. In to the realm of fiction and fantasy.
As you can see from his stalwart belief that the video hoax, isn't a hoax.
How true.
But you say the IDF did shoot him, with 100% certainty.
So you can use it to justify your hatred of Joos.
Which it isn't, because the IDF didn't have a direct line of fire to their position. But hey!!! Why let facts interrupt your hatred of Joos.
But you don't need to wait for that, do you?
I like how in the scenario that supports your hatred, it's 100% conclusive. But in the scenario that doesn't, it isn't 100% conclusive and is now open to speculation.
I love how you spin facts, you're just like Ambassador Bolton. LOL!!!
Anything that shows EAO and Palestine in their true light, is propaganda, shill and pro Israeli. That's how EAP delegitimizes those sources. So he won't have to actually try and formulate a reasoned rebuttal.
You see, that would be the main difference between EAO and I. No matter how asinine the source. I still take the time to tear it apart. And with EAO's sources, that isn't hard.
Funny how EAO can't tear apart those sources he claims or propagandists eh?
Last edited: