[aldo_14]

Thats all i have to say, as sandwich said above me, there was an unexplained time-gap the the IAF cant
explaine. As the IAF said they were reacting to the launching that was happing in that area(showed evidence of missles launching from there aswell), The third strike was the one happend in that area. The IAF though cant explaine how 7 hours after the strike the building had another explosion and collapsed. How the hell in that 7 hours after the strike there were still children and women (the suprising thing no men there,i mean WTF) there that didnt run out, our human insticnt say we should run after somethling like that happens. People in here speaking of consiparcy with so many question, 7 hours later?,only women and children?,maybe its a stock of missles that got trigged 7 hours later and made the building collapse,maybe its a scheme to make the world pressure israel and therfore let the terroist regather thier forces, or maybe it really happend from the israel strike.Either way shame, but that gives no excuse to stop IAF for a duartion of 48 hours, such a bad decision.

I find it pretty clear what is being insinuated; blame the victim, deny responsibility, conspiracy, blame the victim..... in that order.

[Colonol Dekker]

Hey that slondon street crime to a T

[Sandwich]

I find it pretty clear what is being insinuated; blame the victim, deny responsibility, conspiracy, blame the victim..... in that order.

Yeah, pretty much. If true, is that a bad thing? If you're falsely accused of something, do you not defend yourself?

None of us are denying IDF responsibility in the Qana disaster. All we're saying is that nobody has yet explained the 7-8 hour time gap. Investigations are under way, and I'd prefer to wait until the smoke clears (no pun intended) before reaching a conclusion. Since, as we all know, the claims of Islamic terrorists do not always match reality.

[aldo_14]

I find it pretty clear what is being insinuated; blame the victim, deny responsibility, conspiracy, blame the victim..... in that order.

Yeah, pretty much. If true, is that a bad thing? If you're falsely accused of something, do you not defend yourself?

What the hell has that got to do with blaming the victim?  It's like blaming a guy who was shot for jumping in front of a bullet.

None of us are denying IDF responsibility in the Qana disaster. All we're saying is that nobody has yet explained the 7-8 hour time gap. Investigations are under way, and I'd prefer to wait until the smoke clears (no pun intended) before reaching a conclusion. Since, as we all know, the claims of Islamic terrorists do not always match reality.

No-one has even verified an 8 hour gap; local eyewitness reports say it took place instantly (single bomb, ten min gap, second bomb and the the collapse).

Sadly my last edit got nixed by the stupid little bottom RHS button thing (gah), but just look at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html for example; this is the kind of bias I've been talking about, look at how little attnetion it gives to the casualties, international reaction, i.e. anything beyond the IDF claims of justification-stroke-innocence.

[Sandwich]

Yeah, pretty much. If true, is that a bad thing? If you're falsely accused of something, do you not defend yourself?

What the hell has that got to do with blaming the victim?  It's like blaming a guy who was shot for jumping in front of a bullet.

My point is that they have inflated ther own reports before, as well as shown a callous disregard for human life. I'm not blaming anyone until we find out what happened when, all I'm saying is that I find it concieveable that it could be a conspiracy. If you have a problem with what I think is possible, then you have the problem, not me.

And BTW, it wasn't "blame the victim", it was "blame the Hezbollah".

No-one has even verified an 8 hour gap; local eyewitness reports say it took place instantly (single bomb, ten min gap, second bomb and the the collapse).

Sadly my last edit got nixed by the stupid little bottom RHS button thing (gah), but just look at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html for example; this is the kind of bias I've been talking about, look at how little attnetion it gives to the casualties, international reaction, i.e. anything beyond the IDF claims of justification-stroke-innocence.

Ahh, I see what may be the problem. It's partly cultural, partly because it's local vs. world news.

Cultural, because Israelis don't like dancing around a topic - they get right to the point. Short and succinct.

That matters because of the local vs. world news factor. We're reporting on this stuff that's happening in our national backyard, so to speak, so it is getting a LOT of media attention. Not just headlines, but most of the other reports, too. This means that the apparent disregard in that article for the Lebanese casualties, the horror, the disaster, etc, is not disregard at all. That article is simply about the time gap, not the Qana disaster.

This article is about the Qana disaster.

And yes, we all know that the time gap has not been verified yet. That's why I'm reserving judgement.

[aldo_14]

My point is that they have inflated ther own reports before, as well as shown a callous disregard for human life. I'm not blaming anyone until we find out what happened when, all I'm saying is that I find it concieveable that it could be a conspiracy. If you have a problem with what I think is possible, then you have the problem, not me.

And BTW, it wasn't "blame the victim", it was "blame the Hezbollah".

So not 'take responsibility'?  Me, I'd think the automoatic presumption would be - Israeli bomb hits building, building collapses, it's probably down to the IAF.

Ahh, I see what may be the problem. It's partly cultural, partly because it's local vs. world news.

Cultural, because Israelis don't like dancing around a topic - they get right to the point. Short and succinct.

That matters because of the local vs. world news factor. We're reporting on this stuff that's happening in our national backyard, so to speak, so it is getting a LOT of media attention. Not just headlines, but most of the other reports, too. This means that the apparent disregard in that article for the Lebanese casualties, the horror, the disaster, etc, is not disregard at all. That article is simply about the time gap, not the Qana disaster.

This article is about the Qana disaster.

And yes, we all know that the time gap has not been verified yet. That's why I'm reserving judgement.

but even if you look at that article, by the 5th or 6th paragraph it's moving onto the justification and whatnot for the strike.  There's nary a mention of the massive international outcry and condemnation, and the only exterior news source mentioned is Al-Jazeera, who clearly will be easier for the reader to ignore as 'biased'. 

[Sandwich]

So not 'take responsibility'?  Me, I'd think the automoatic presumption would be - Israeli bomb hits building, building collapses, it's probably down to the IAF.

That was our automatic presumption as well, and we apologized for the matter. No, apologies don't really cover things like that, I know. But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?

but even if you look at that article, by the 5th or 6th paragraph it's moving onto the justification and whatnot for the strike.  There's nary a mention of the massive international outcry and condemnation, and the only exterior news source mentioned is Al-Jazeera, who clearly will be easier for the reader to ignore as 'biased'. 

Ok, Aldo? Gimme a break. You want everything on one single article? I said already, this is our life, and the reporting related to it is vast and detailed. One look at the main News section of that site should satisfy your desire to see that "Hey, yes, us Israelis are shown what the rest of the world thinks of us."

I mean, seriously, what do you expect? Us to cram EVERYthing about this war between Israel and the Hezbollah into one single article? Of course not - I don't think for a moment that you'd really expect that. So why all the grief just because any given article doesn't cover everything there is to be said about this issue?

BTW, who was looking for evidence that Katyushas were being fired from that building?

[NGTM-1R]

Finally, a quote matching the stupidity of 'this is an act of war' in relation to the Gitmo suicides.

Cant find why though, please enlight me why .Or are u just mad i called u a retard 3 pages ago?

The irony. It BURNS.

[karajorma]

But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?

But as I've already stated we know that the terrorists are wankers.


If you have two criminals. One murders people while the other murders them then rapes the dead bodies. Does that make the first one any less guilty in any way? Could the first one in his trial say "But I didn't rape the dead bodies so you shouldn't accuse me of any crime!"

It strikes me in every single one of these arguments you try to claim that you're better than the terrorists. Fine you're better. But only in the way the first murderer is better than the second one. Israel's crimes might not be as heinous but they are still crimes. They should still be called to account for them. Pointing at someone else and saying "But he's worse" is no defence when it comes to this matter.

Furthermore the fact is that this offensive has killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Does that mean that if the terrorists only targetted military targets and did apologise after killing civilians that would make them better than you?

[aldo_14]

That was our automatic presumption as well, and we apologized for the matter. No, apologies don't really cover things like that, I know. But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?

What exactly is your point, here?

Ok, Aldo? Gimme a break. You want everything on one single article? I said already, this is our life, and the reporting related to it is vast and detailed. One look at the main News section of that site should satisfy your desire to see that "Hey, yes, us Israelis are shown what the rest of the world thinks of us."

I mean, seriously, what do you expect? Us to cram EVERYthing about this war between Israel and the Hezbollah into one single article? Of course not - I don't think for a moment that you'd really expect that. So why all the grief just because any given article doesn't cover everything there is to be said about this issue?

BTW, who was looking for evidence that Katyushas were being fired from that building?

So the international condemnation is relegated to a (very much optional) side-story, which is my whole point.  Every neutral party reporting of the story includes international response, not sidelining it as a 'special section' type arrangement.  One of the most important factors - the geopolitical implications (something that only serves to strengthen the influence of Hezbollah - is simply omitted from the main story item.

For example, contrast the first link to the initial BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).

[Fear]

 
I never denyed the IAF responsibltiy , you people are putting words in my mouth and rumble on for 2 pages about it without me even having a chance to reply.
Mefustae yea i do think its a bad thing, as Bobboau indicated it will give hezbollah a chance to regather his forces.
Kara FFS i have no idea wtf you want from me, i have told you people in here are asking questions related to it, because we got no clue what happend in that time-gap it doesn mean i belive it, it doesnt mean i dont aswell but you chose me(and everybody in israel) to belive it, next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something i heared, because its certianly not a fact that we belived it was a consiparcy.
Aldo if you ever going to blame or point a finger to anyone try to explain why, its just getting the other side confused,angry and so on, if you cant or fell 2 lazy to post why one-man post is idiotic in your taste fell free to not-posting.

For those who still didnt understand , let me clearfy for you. I havent being accusing anyone yet i just pointed out what people in here are talking about that matter, i also said it could be IAF fault i only pointed out its a shame that the IAF are stoping for 48 hours.
Now if you will ask me what i think(and i point out ME!) , i will tell you nothing, i want to think its a conspiracy but its most likely be the IAF fault, yet im obviously trusting more the IDF.

[aldo_14]

Aldo if you ever going to blame or point a finger to anyone try to explain why, its just getting the other side confused,angry and so on, if you cant or fell 2 lazy to post why one-man post is idiotic in your taste fell free to not-posting.

you're confused?!

[Fear]

Not now,before tho.

[karajorma]

I never denyed the IAF responsibltiy , you people are putting words in my mouth and rumble on for 2 pages about it without me even having a chance to reply.

Who says I was replying to you? I was pointing out that from all the Israeli members there appears to be an undercurrent of willingness to believe that there was some sinister conspiracy going on rather than simply using the most obvious explaination which is that the build was shot at by Israel and then collapsed from that damage.

Meanwhile the outside world doesn't even give much credence to the theory let alone that the answer from the Israeli military won't be a complete whitewash absolving them of any blame. It's not like they haven't done that before when people who turn out to be western reporters have gotten killed and they've been forced to actually care about why a civilian got killed.

next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something

In light of what I've said above I'd advise you to take your own advice.

[Fear]

Well it certainly looked like you were replying to me,  consdiering the fact that my post was only 3 post above, considering that you replyed to the conspiarcy which only i untill that time talked about. so yes you did replyed to me oh here is a simple thing that will come along with my posts to you from now on:

next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something i heared

[karajorma]

Well it certainly looked like you were replying to me,  consdiering the fact that my post was only 3 post above, considering that you replyed to the conspiarcy which only i untill that time talked about.

Ah, here we go, front and center. I wonder how soon non-Israeli news sources will run this story.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744332.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292036218&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The summary is that the IDF struck the building that collapsed between 12am and 1am local time, and yet the building only collapsed at 8am. They are so far unable to explain the time gap.

Do you really want to continue saying that you were the only person to have mentioned it?

so yes you did replyed to me oh here is a simple thing that will come along with my posts to you from now on:

next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something

Feel free to include it. One day you might actually listen to it yourself.

[Nuclear1]

So the international condemnation is relegated to a (very much optional) side-story, which is my whole point.

This breaking news from the UN--Israel condemned for actions in Lebanon/Palestine. We'll have more on these shocking new developments at eleven.

I think the Israeli audience might have figured out already that the world was going to condemn them for this. After all, a large number of Lebanese civilians were killed as a result of an IAF strike--what else do you need to condemn Israel?

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).

This article, on the other hand, is all about condemning Israel and implying that Israel bombed the building for no other reason than to slaughter Lebanese civilians. Sandwich's articles, on the other hand, give evidence that this might have been an intelligence foul-up, or that Hezbollah might have actually been using the immediate vicinity as a launch point for rockets.

On a side note, Fear, this may be the time to take a breather and just leave the thread alone. You don't have to blow a stack at kara or aldo just because they're arguing the opposite opinion and you don't like it.

[Fear]

Wait a second there, i only read the headline(could be a problem though) but all it metioned in the links sand gave is the time-gap, while in your post you talked about filling the building with women and children,and collapsing it for "widespread international condemnation"  which was only mentioned in my post as something people have been wondering about here. Puff. oh so yea, you posted to me.

[aldo_14]

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).

This article, on the other hand, is all about condemning Israel and implying that Israel bombed the building for no other reason than to slaughter Lebanese civilians.

Actualy, you'll find that there's not a single comment on the possible motivation for the airstrike.  It simply states what happened, and the consequences thereafter.

[Sandwich]

If you have two criminals. One murders people while the other murders them then rapes the dead bodies. Does that make the first one any less guilty in any way? Could the first one in his trial say "But I didn't rape the dead bodies so you shouldn't accuse me of any crime!"

That "parallel" is so twisted and un-parallel-y that I'm not even going to bother.

Pointing at someone else and saying "But he's worse" is no defence when it comes to this matter.

It's not supposed to be a defense at all. It's a cry for equal standards to be applied to Israel and the rest of the world. And no, I'm not really expecting my cry to be answered. I just toss it out there so that hopefully, someone somewhere will start to wonder why indeed such a double-standard is applied when it comes to Israel.

Where is the international condemnation and media-wide uproar at the literally (I do not exaggerate) hundreds of rockets hitting northern Israel, hmm?

Furthermore the fact is that this offensive has killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Does that mean that if the terrorists only targetted military targets and did apologise after killing civilians that would make them better than you?

If the terrorists only targetted military targets and apologised after accidentally killing civillians, than they would not be terrorists, would they? They'd be real, honest-to-God freedom fighters, struggling against a military force.

Why do you think it's called "terrorism", anyway? A soldier knows that (all other things being equal) he is a soldier, and his life is on the line in the defense of his country. Grandma Gertrude and her 3-year-old granddaughter Sheniquah aren't soldiers that just happen to be out of uniform, lounging around eating pizza in town.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: if the Palestinians targeted Israel's military forces and not Israel's civillian population, I would have no moral problem with that at all... and I say that as one of those who puts on that uniform and makes himself a valid target once a year.

But to answer your question (with the assumption that by "terrorists" you mean anyone among the Pallies/Lebanese who wants to fight against Israel, and by "better", you mean "more morally righteous"), then yes. If they solely targeted military targets, and apologized when they accidentally killed civilians, then yes, they would be "better" than us.

After all, change is, in fact, change.

That was our automatic presumption as well, and we apologized for the matter. No, apologies don't really cover things like that, I know. But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?

What exactly is your point, here?

That we presumed it was an IAF strike that brought down the building and killed all those innocent Lebanese, and apologized for it. But we also haven't managed to reach any sort of final conclusion on what exactly brought down the building, so I refuse to lay blame on either side.

So the international condemnation is relegated to a (very much optional) side-story, which is my whole point.  Every neutral party reporting of the story includes international response, not sidelining it as a 'special section' type arrangement.  One of the most important factors - the geopolitical implications (something that only serves to strengthen the influence of Hezbollah - is simply omitted from the main story item.

For example, contrast the first link to the initial BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).

Nice report. I liked how it failed at any point to mention how that Hezbollah had been launching rocket after rocket at Israel from that building. Or how BBC's main Middle-East page fails to mention anything about the continual barrage of rockets on Israeli cities and towns in the north, which is why Israel's continuing to bombard Hezbollah locations relentlessly... oh, wait, except for this recent (one-sided?) cease-fire.

Anyway, nice balanced reporting there, BBC. Keep up the bias.