Comments on: Another false exposé by right-wing bloggers

By: Thersites

Thersites — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:22:49 +0000

Well, it’s still not working on my rather ancient machine. You still haven’t explained how you can dishonestly believe something, JD.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:08:27 +0000

Thersites wrote: “I know little about motor vehicles…”

You should have stopped right there. That was your best comment so far.

“…a projectile that did make a hole that size would either make another hole the same size going out of the vehicle or completely destroy it.”

Obviously in the video (which worked just fine for me) the ambulance is intact although heavily damaged. We cannot see in the video any exit hole made by the projectile, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one and you haven’t proved that there isn’t one.

“The interior of the vehicle is consistent with being its hit by shrapnel, not being directly hit by a missile or shell.”

I don’t know how you can say this without having seen the interior of the ambulance. You have? Provide proof, please. The video shows the exterior of the ambulance (primarily the roof) and nothing of the interior.

Arguing that the huge hole in the center of the roof was perhaps caused by an air conditioning unit is, quite frankly, a bunch of crap. The hole is far too irregular in shape to have been caused by any metal cutting tools and the entire roof of the ambulance is deeply and irregularly caved in. That much can be easily seen on the opening photograph to the video.

Once again, I must ask, “Do you honestly believe anything of what you write?”

By: Thersites

Thersites — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:07:48 +0000

I know little about motor vehicles, Dr Mabuse, but I’ve seen them with holes cut in the roof and ventilation units stuck through them and that’s a more likely explanation for a hole that size and shape than a projectile. I do know something about physics and a projectile is very unlikely to make a hole that size or shape in metal. As I said, a projectile that did make a hole that size would either make another hole the same size going out of the vehicle or completely destroy it. The interior of the vehicle is consistent with being its hit by shrapnel, not being directly hit by a missile or shell.

By: DrM

DrM — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:17:28 +0000

Now I’ve heard it all. An AIR CONDITIONER unit?!! TherShites, you truly are are an idiot and apologist for zionist terror.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:27:17 +0000

Can anyone dishonestly believe anything of what they write?

I haven’t said anything of what I believe. I’ve merely pointed out an anomaly. If you can provide a convincing exlanation, do so.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 09:41:18 +0000

My own guess is that it was for an air-conditioning or air extraction unit blown off in the attack.

Yeah, right. Do you honestly believe anything of what you write?

By: Thersites

Thersites — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:36:40 +0000

Couldn’t get at your video; however, in the pictures i have seen, the hole in the roof is the wrong size and shape for a shell or missile. A shell or missile that made a hole that size would either make a similar hole on its way out or explode so violently inside the vehicle as to completely destroy it. My own guess is that it was for an air-conditioning or air extraction unit blown off in the attack.

By: JDsg

JDsg — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:01:22 +0000

I'm a bit surprised you just got around to this story; the Jamil/Jamail Hussein story has been floating around for a couple weeks now (with Michelle Malkin leading the charge). As for the "shrapnel" argument, go look at this video, and tell me that the big hole in the center of the red cross was made by shrapnel. All the little holes in the metal roof of the ambulance, yes, shrapnel; the huge hole in the center of the roof, no, an Israeli shell.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:32:13 +0000

There are two parts to the Lebanese attack. The original version was that the ambulances were deliberately attacked by missiles fired by Isreali helicopters or drones. The arguments against that are very powerful. The other one- which the israelis acknowledged could have happened- is that they were hit by shrapnel from an Israeli shell, not aimed at ambulances.

By: Tariq Nelson

Tariq Nelson — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:30:49 +0000

I don’t think this will matter to them. Part of their agenda is to discredit the media while putting themselves up as the paragons of credibility.

Anything it takes to promote their dehumanization campaign against the Muslims.

They are not looking good, now that Congressman Ellison is proving to be a nice guy and not some irrational medievalist as they have relentlessly portrayed him.